draft basic assessment report - csir · jonathan 175- jq, brits, north west basic assessment...
TRANSCRIPT
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT – Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm
Jonathan 175- JQ, Brits, North West.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
CSIR Report Number: CSIR/02100/EMS/IR/2016/0003/A
May 2017
Prepared for:
JamRock (Pty) Ltd
Prepared by: CSIR
P O Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599 Tel: +27 21 888 2432 Fax: +27 21 888 2473
Email: [email protected]
Lead Author: Reinett Mogotshi
Reviewer:
Minnelise Levendal
COPYRIGHT
© CSIR 2017. All rights to the intellectual property and/or contents of this document remain vested in the CSIR. This document is issued for the sole purpose for which it is supplied. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the express written permission of the CSIR. It may also not be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise disposed of by way of trade in any form of binding or cover than that in
which it is published.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 1
Title: Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Brits, North West.
Purpose of this report: The purpose of this BA Report is to:
Present the proposed project and the need for the project;
Describe the affected environment at a sufficient level of detail
to facilitate informed decision-making;
Provide an overview of the BA Process being followed, including
public consultation;
Assess the predicted positive and negative impacts of the
project on the environment;
Provide recommendations to avoid or mitigate negative impacts
and to enhance the positive benefits of the project;
Provide an Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for
the proposed project.
This BA Report is being made available to all Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) and stakeholders for a 30-day review period. All comments submitted during the review of the BA Report will be incorporated into the finalised BA Report as applicable and where necessary. This finalised BA Report will then be submitted to the North West Department of Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development (READ) for decision-making.
Prepared for: Jam Rock (Pty) Ltd
Prepared by: CSIR
P O Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599
Tel: +27 21 888 2432
Fax: +27 21 888 2473
Author:
Reviewer:
Reinett Mogotshi
Minnelise Levendal
CSIR Report Number:
CSIR Project Number:
CSIR/02100/EMS/IR/2016/0003/A
EMS0136
Date: May 2017
To be cited as: CSIR, 2017. Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Brits, North West. CSIR Report Number CSIR/02100/EMS/IR/2016/0003/A
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 2
Opportunity for Review: This Draft Basic Assessment Report, including theDraft Environmental Management Programme (EMPr), is hereby released for a 30-day review period by stakeholders.
Project Manager - Reinett Mogotshi
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Postal Address: P.O. Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599
Phone: 021 888 2432 Fax: 021 888 2693
Email: [email protected]
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 3
SECTION A ACTIVITY INFORMATION 18
A.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 18
A.2 FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES 21
A.3 PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY 25
A.4 SITE ACCESS 25
A.5 LOCALITY MAP 26
A.6 LAYOUT/ROUTE PLAN 26
A.7 SENSITIVITY MAP 26
A.8 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 27
A.9 FACILITY ILLUSTRATION 27
A.10 ACTIVITY MOTIVATION 27
A.11 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES 30
A.12 WASTE, EFFLUENT, EMISSION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT 30
A.13 WATER USE 33
A.14 ENERGY EFFICIENCY 33
SECTION B SITE/AREA/PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 35
B.1 GRADIENT OF THE SITE 35
B.2 LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE 35
B.3 GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE 36
B.4 GROUNDCOVER 36
B.5 SURFACE WATER 36
B.6 LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA 37
B.7 BIODIVERSITY 38
B.8 CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES 41
B.9 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTER 43
B.10 SPECIALIST(S) CONSULTATION 46
SECTION C IMPACT ASSESSMENT 46
C.1 IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING AND DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION,
OPERATIONAL, DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASES AS WELL AS PROPOSED
MANAGEMENT OF IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 46
C.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 67
SECTION D PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 68
D.1 ADVERTISEMENT AND NOTICE 68
D.2 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MEASURES 68
D.3 ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES 69
D.4 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT 69
D.5 AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION 69
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 4
D.6 CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 70
SECTION E RECOMMENDATION OF PRACTITIONER 71
E.1 SECTION F: AFFIRMATION BY EAP 72
SECTION F APPENDICES 72
Appendix A A3 Locality Map
Appendix B Layout Plan and Sensitivity Maps
Appendix C Photographs
Appendix D Facility illustration(s)
Appendix E Confirmation of services by Municipality (servitude and infrastructure planning)
Appendix F Details and expertise of Specialist and Declaration of Interest
Appendix G Specialist reports (including terms of reference)
Appendix H Impact Assessment
Appendix I Public Participation
Appendix J Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)
Appendix K Details of EAP and expertise
Appendix L Any other Information
Appendix M Financial Provision (if applicable)
Appendix N Closure Plan (where applicable) as described in Appendix 5 of EIA Regulations, 2017
Table 1: Listed activity relating to the proposed project 6
Table 2: Summary of Impacts 8
Table 3: Vegetation units within the proposed development site 41
Figure 1: Potential wetland areas 37
Figure 2: Vegetation units within the proposed development site 40
Figure 3: Photographs of Conservation Important plant species on Site 41
Figure 4: Employment status within the Moretele Local Municipality 43
Figure 5: Percentage of average household income 44
Figure 6: Level of education within Moretele Local Municipality 45
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 5
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Jam Rock (Pty) Ltd is a producer of broiler chickens that are raised with strict considerations for chickens and the environment. It is located in Brits, North West Province. The Enterprise proposes to develop three chicken broiler houses with associated infrastructure including a road, storage unit and farm house. The size of each chicken house will be 20m x 130m, with the capacity to breed 40 000 chickens per cycle. The farm is 9.2 hectares and is situated on Portion 40 of the farm Jonathan 175-JQ. Furthermore the farm has an existing borehole with the capacity to store 10 000 L of water.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), appointed by National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), runs the Special Needs and Skills Development Programme which is aimed at providing Environmental Services, pro-bono, to small-scale businesses. The programme offers the undertaking of a Basic Assessment for projects that require this assistance in applying for Environmental Authorisation. The CSIR is currently undertaking a Basic Assessment Process for Jam Rock (Pty) Ltd for their proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175-JQ, Brits, North west. The development triggers listed activities in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, Government Regulations (GNR) 324 and 327 of April 2017 promulgated under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act no 107 of 1998). In terms of these Regulations, a Basic Assessment (BA) should be undertaken for the proposed project. The EAP will be managing the BA process on behalf of the project applicant. In terms of the amended NEMA EIA Regulations published in GNR 324, 325, 326 and 327 on the 7 April 2017 Government Gazette Number 40772, a BA process is required as the project triggers the following listed activities (detailed in Table 1 below).
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 6
Table 1: Listed activity relating to the proposed project
Relevant notice Activity No (s) (in
terms of the relevant notice) :
Description of each listed activity as per the Government Notice
GN. R 327, 7 April 2017
5. (ii) and (iv) The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the concentration of
(ii) more than 5 000 poultry per facility situated outside an urban area, excluding chicks younger than 20 days and (iv) more than 25000 chicks younger than 20 days per facility situated outside an urban area.
GN. R 327, 7 April 2017
27 The clearance of an area of 1 hectare or more, but less than 20 hectares of indigenous vegetation, except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for- i) the undertaking of a linear activity; or ii) maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan.
GN. R 324, 7 April 2017
12(h)(iv) The clearance of 300 square metres or more of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with the maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance plan in North West within critical biodiversity areas identified in in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority.
These listed activities require Environmental Authorisation from the Department: Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development (READ).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Enterprise proposes to develop a 1.6 hectare broiler facility with associated infrastructure including a road, storage unit, workers quarters and office. The size of each chicken house will be 20m x 130m, with the capacity to breed 40 000 chickens per cycle. The farm is 9.2 hectares and is situated on Portion 40 of the farm Jonathan 175-JQ. Furthermore the farm has an existing borehole with the capacity to store 10 000 L of water.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 7
The proposed infrastructure of the broiler facility will entail the following:
3x chicken houses (130m x 20m)
6m access road
Workers quarter (80mx 40m)
Storage unit (60m x 40m)
Home and office (40m x 40m)
Used bedding area (20m x 60m)
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Two specialist studies were undertaken as part of the BA Process. These studies included a Terrestrial Impact Assessment and Heritage Impact Assessment. The findings of these studies are summarised below. It is important to note that the impacts described below apply to the proposed alternative.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 8
Table 2: Summary of Impacts
POTENTIAL IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE
RATING
SIGNIFICANCE
RATING
CONSTRUCTION Without With
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road High (-) Low (-)
Loss of terrestrial vegetation and faunal habitat Medium (-) Low (-)
Loss of CI or medicinal flora. Medium (-) Low (-)
Loss of CI fauna Medium (-) Low (-)
Introduction and proliferation of alien species High (-) Low (-)
Increased dust and erosion Medium (-) Low (-)
Sensory disturbance of fauna Medium (-) Low (-)
Destruction of palaeontological material Very Low (-) Very Low (-)
Destruction of archaeological artefacts Very Low (-) Very Low (-)
Destruction of graves Low (-) Very Low (+)
Emissions from dust generation and construction vehicles Low (-) Low (-)
Potential spillage of by spillage or discharge of construction waste water Low (-) Very Low (-)
Potential Pollution of the surrounding water and ground as a result of generation of building rubble and waste scrap material High (-) Low (-)
Opportunities for employment and skills development High (+) High (+)
Potential visual impacts as the result of construction activities Low (-) Low (-)
Potential noise impact as the result of the use of construction equipment Medium (-) Low (-)
Potential impact on the safety of construction workers and Health injuries to construction personnel as a result of construction work Medium (-) Medium (-)
Traffic, congestion and potential for collisions Low (-) Low (-)
OPERATION
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road High (-) Low (-)
Environmental contamination Medium (-) Low (-)
Poor / Inappropriate control of animal pests High (-) Low (-)
Disease transmission Medium (-) Low (-)
Altered burning Medium (-) Low (-)
Introduction and proliferation of alien species High (-) Low (-)
Loss of CI or medicinal flora Medium (-) Low (-)
Sensory disturbance of fauna Medium (-) Low (-)
Destruction of palaeontological material Very Low (-) Very Low (-)
Destruction of archaeological artefacts Very Low (-) Very Low (-)
Destruction of graves Low (-) Very Low (+)
Emissions into the atmosphere as a result of staff vehicles. Medium (-) Low (-)
Improved service delivery with regards poultry products Medium (+) High (+)
Opportunities for employment and skills development Medium (+) High (+)
Night lighting of the development on the nightscape of the surrounding landscape Low (-) Low (-)
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 9
Potential noise impact from operations and road transportation of products Medium (-) Low (-)
Minor accidents to the public and moderate accidents to operational staff Medium (-) Low (-)
Atmospheric pollution due to fumes, smoke from fires Medium (-) Low (-)
DECOMMISSIONING
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road High (-) Low (-)
Introduction and proliferation of alien species High (-) Low (-)
Increased dust and erosion Medium (-) Low (-)
Sensory disturbance of fauna Low (-) Low (-)
Destruction of palaeontological material Very Low (-) Very Low (-)
Destruction of archaeological artefacts Very Low (-) Very Low (-)
Destruction of graves Low (-) Very Low (+)
Discharge of contaminated stormwater into the surrounding environment Medium (-) Low (-)
Emissions from decommissioning vehicles and generation of dust Medium (-) Low (-)
Noise generation from demolition activities Medium (-) Low (-)
Pollution of the surrounding environment as a result of the handling, temporary storage and disposal of solid waste High (-) Low (-)
EAP’S RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings of this BA Process, it is therefore the opinion of the EAP that conducted this BA Process, that there are no negative impacts that should be considered as “fatal flaws” from an environmental perspective, and thereby necessitate the development of the chicken broiler. Based on the findings of this Draft BA Report, it is the opinion of the EAP that the project benefits outweigh the negative environmental impacts, and that the project will make a positive contribution towards skills development, women empowerment and economic growth in the Moretele Local Municipality. An Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) has been compiled for the proposed project. This Draft EMPr captures the project specific information for all phases of the development and includes all mitigation actions identified in this BA Process. The Draft EMPr is a dynamic document that should be updated regularly and provide clear and implementable measures for the establishment and operation of the proposed project. It is our recommendation that all the mitigation measures be implemented for the proposed project. Concluding statement from EAP: Provided that the specified mitigation measures are applied effectively, it is proposed that the project receives Environmental Authorisation in terms of the EIA Regulations promulgated under the NEMA.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 10
BA Basic Assessment
BID Background Information Document
CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
DEA National Department of Environmental Affairs
EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner
EAPs Environmental Assessment Practitioners
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMP Environmental Management Plan
EMPr Environmental Management Programme
I&AP Interested and Affected Party
I&APs Interested and Affected Parties
IDP Integrated Development Plan
NWA National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998)
NEM: AQA National Environment Management: Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004)
NEM: ICMA National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act 24 of 2008)
NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)
NHRA National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999)
PPP Public Participation Process
SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency
SAHRIS South African Heritage Resources Information System
SDF Spatial Development Framework
READ Department of Rural, Environmental and Agricultural Development
TOR Terms of Reference
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 11
Summary of where requirements of Appendix 1 of the 2017 NEMA EIA Regulations (GN R 326, as amended)
are provided in this Basic Assessment Report.
APPENDIX 1 OF THE REGULATIONS YES / NO SECTION IN BAR
1) A basic assessment report must contain the information that is necessary for the competent authority to consider and come to a decision on the application, and must include-
(a) details of –
i. the EAP who prepared the report; and √ Appendix K
ii. the expertise of the EAP, including a curriculum vitae; √ Appendix K
(b) the location of the activity, including
i) the 21 digit Surveyor General code of each cadastral land parcel; √ Section A
(ii) where available, the physical address and farm name;
(iii) where the required information in items (i) and (ii) is not available, the coordinates of the boundary of the property or properties;
(c) a plan which locates the proposed activity or activities applied for as well as associated structures and infrastructure at an appropriate scale; or, if it is-
(i) a linear activity, a description and coordinates of the corridor in which the proposed activity or activities is to be undertaken; or
(ii) on land where the property has not been defined, the coordinates within which the activity
(iii) is to be undertaken;
√ Section A, Appendix
A & B
(d) a description of the scope of the proposed activity, including
(i) all listed and specified activities triggered and being applied for; and
(ii) a description of the activities to be undertaken including associated structures and infrastructure ;
√ Section A1
(e) a description of the policy and legislative context within which the development is proposed including-
(i) an identification of all legislation, policies, plans, guidelines, spatial tools, municipal development planning √ Section A11
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 12
APPENDIX 1 OF THE REGULATIONS YES / NO SECTION IN BAR
frameworks, and instruments that are applicable to this activity and have been considered in the preparation of the report; and
(ii) how the proposed activity complies with and responds to the legislation and policy context, plans, guidelines, tools frameworks, and instruments
(f) a motivation for the need and desirability for the proposed development including the need and desirability of the activity in the context of the preferred location
√ Section A10
(g) a motivation for the preferred site, activity and technology alternative; √ Section A2
(h) a full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred alternative within the site, including:
(i) details of all the alternatives considered;
(ii) details of the public participation process undertaken in terms of regulation 41 of the Regulations, including copies of the supporting documents and inputs;
(iii) a summary of the issues raised by interested and affected parties, and an indication of the manner in which the issues were incorporated, or the reasons for not including them;
(iv) the environmental attributes associated with the alternatives focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, heritage and cultural aspects;
(v) the impacts and risks identified for each alternative, including the nature, significance,
consequence, extent, duration and probability of the impacts, including the degree to
which these impacts-
(aa) can be reversed;
(bb) may cause irreplaceable loss of resources; and
(cc) can be avoided, managed or mitigated;
(vi) the methodology used in determining and ranking the nature, significance,
consequences, extent, duration and probability of potential environmental impacts and
risks associated with the alternatives;
(vii) positive and negative impacts that the proposed activity and alternatives will have on the
environment and on the community that may be affected focusing on the geographical,
physical, biological, social, economic, heritage and cultural aspects;
√ Section C & D
Appendix G & I
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 13
APPENDIX 1 OF THE REGULATIONS YES / NO SECTION IN BAR
(viii) the possible mitigation measures that could be applied and level of residual risk;
(ix) the outcome of the site selection matrix;
(x) if no alternatives, including alternative locations for the activity were investigated, the
motivation for not considering such; and
(xi) a concluding statement indicating the preferred alternatives, including preferred location
of the activity;
(i) a full description of the process undertaken to identify, assess and rank the impacts the activity
will impose on the preferred location through the life of the activity, including-
(i) a description of all environmental issues and risks that were identified during the environmental impact assessment process; and
(ii) an assessment of the significance of each issue and risk and an indication of the extent to which the issue and risk could be avoided or addressed by the adoption of mitigation measures;
√ Section C
Appendix G
(j) an assessment of each identified potentially significant impact and risk, including-
(I) cumulative impacts;
(ii) the nature, significance and consequences of the impact and risk;
(iii) the extent and duration of the impact and risk;
(iv) the probability of the impact and risk occurring;
(v) the degree to which the impact and risk can be reversed;
(vi) the degree to which the impact and risk may cause irreplaceable loss of resources; and
(vii) the degree to which the impact and risk can be avoided, managed or mitigated;
√ Section C
Appendix I
(k) where applicable, a summary of the findings and impact management measures identified in any specialist report complying with Appendix 6 to these Regulations and an indication as to how these findings and recommendations have been included in the final report;
√ Appendix G
(l) an environmental impact statement which contains-
(i) a summary of the key findings of the environmental impact assessment;
(ii) a map at an appropriate scale which superimposes the proposed activity and its associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the preferred site indicating any areas that should be
√ Section C2
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 14
APPENDIX 1 OF THE REGULATIONS YES / NO SECTION IN BAR
avoided, including buffers; and
(iii) a summary of the positive and negative impacts and risks of the proposed activity and identified alternatives;
(m) based on the assessment, and where applicable, impact management measures from specialist reports, the recording of the proposed impact management objectives, and the impact management outcomes for the development for inclusion in the EMPr;
√ Section E
(n) any aspects which were conditional to the findings of the assessment either by the EAP or specialist which are to be included as conditions of authorisation;
√ Appendix E
(o) a description of any assumptions, uncertainties, and gaps in knowledge which relate to the assessment and mitigation measures proposed;
(p) a reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity should or should not be authorised, and if the opinion is that it should be authorised, any conditions that should be made in respect of that authorisation;
(q) where the proposed activity does not include operational aspects, the period for which the environmental authorisation is required, the date on which the activity will be concluded, and the post construction monitoring requirements finalised;
√ N/A
(r) an undertaking under oath or affirmation by the EAP in relation to:
(i) the correctness of the information provided in the reports;
(ii) the inclusion of comments and inputs from stakeholders and l&APs;
(iii) the inclusion of inputs and recommendations from the specialist reports where relevant; and
(iv) any information provided by the EAP to interested and affected parties and any responses by the EAP to comments or inputs made by interested and affected parties; and
√ Appendix K
(s) where applicable, details of any financial provisions for the rehabilitation, closure, and ongoing post decommissioning management of negative environmental impacts;
N/A N/A
(t) any specific information that may be required by the competent authority; and N/A N/A
(u) any other matters required in terms of section 24(4)(a) and (b) of the Act.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 16
SECTION A ACTIVITY INFORMATION 18
A.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 18
A.2 FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES 21
A.3 PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY 25
A.4 SITE ACCESS 25
A.5 LOCALITY MAP 26
A.6 LAYOUT/ROUTE PLAN 26
A.7 SENSITIVITY MAP 26
A.8 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 27
A.9 FACILITY ILLUSTRATION 27
A.10 ACTIVITY MOTIVATION 27
A.11 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES 30
A.12 WASTE, EFFLUENT, EMISSION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT 30
A.13 WATER USE 33
A.14 ENERGY EFFICIENCY 33
SECTION B SITE/AREA/PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 35
B.1 GRADIENT OF THE SITE 35
B.2 LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE 35
B.3 GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE 36
B.4 GROUNDCOVER 36
B.5 SURFACE WATER 36
B.6 LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA 37
B.7 BIODIVERSITY 38
B.8 CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES 41
B.9 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTER 43
B.10 SPECIALIST(S) CONSULTATION 46
SECTION C IMPACT ASSESSMENT 46
C.1 IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING AND DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION,
OPERATIONAL, DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASES AS WELL AS PROPOSED
MANAGEMENT OF IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 46
C.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 67
SECTION D PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 68
D.1 ADVERTISEMENT AND NOTICE 68
D.2 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MEASURES 68
D.3 ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES 69
D.4 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT 69
D.5 AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION 69
D.6 CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 70
SECTION E RECOMMENDATION OF PRACTITIONER 71
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 17
CHIEF DIRECTORATE: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIRECTORATE: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT
(For official use only)
Provincial Reference Number:
NEAS Ref Number:
Date Received:
Basic assessment report in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017, promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended. Kindly note that:
1. This basic assessment report is a standard report that may be required by a competent authority in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2017 and is meant to streamline applications.
2. This report format is current as of December 2014. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ascertain whether subsequent versions of the form have been published or produced by the competent authority
3. The report must be typed within the spaces provided in the form. The size of the spaces provided is not necessarily indicative of the amount of information to be provided. The report is in the form of a table that can extend itself as each space is filled with typing.
4. Where applicable tick the boxes that are applicable in the report. 5. The use of “not applicable” in the report must be done with circumspection. An incomplete report or
that does not meet the requirements in terms of Regulation 19 of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2017, will be rejected to be revised and be resubmitted.
6. The report must be handed in at offices of the relevant competent authority as determined by each authority.
7. No faxed or e-mailed reports will be accepted. 8. The signature of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) on the report must be an original. 9. The report must be compiled by an independent EAP. 10. Unless protected by law, all information in the report will become public information on receipt by the
competent authority. Any interested and affected party should be provided with the information contained in this report on request, during any stage of the application process.
11. A competent authority may require that for specified types of activities in defined situations only parts of this report need to be completed.
12. Should a specialist report or report on a specialised process be submitted at any stage for any part of this application, the terms of reference for such report must also be submitted.
13. Two (2) colour hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the report must be submitted to the competent authority.
14. Shape files (.shp) for maps must be included on the electronic copy of the report submitted to the competent authority.
AgriCentre Building
Cnr. Dr. James Moroka
and Stadium Rd
Private Bag X2039,
Mmabatho 2735
Tel: +27 (18) 389 5156
Fax: +27(18) 389 5006
E-mail: [email protected]
Enq: EIA Admin Officer
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 18
SECTION A ACTIVITY INFORMATION
A.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Jam Rock (Pty) Ltd is a producer of broiler chickens that are raised with strict considerations for chickens and the environment. It is located in Brits, North West Province. The Enterprise proposes to develop three chicken broiler houses with associated infrastructure including a road, storage unit and farm house. The size of each chicken house will be 20m x 130m, with the capacity to breed 40 000 chickens per cycle. The farm is 9.2 hectares and is situated on Portion 40 of the farm Jonathan 175-JQ. Furthermore the farm has an existing borehole with the capacity to store 10 000 L of water.
The proposed infrastructure of the broiler facility will entail the following:
3 x Chicken houses (130 m x 20 m)
6m access road
Workers quarter (80 m x 40 m)
Storage unit (60 m x 40 m)
Home and office (40 m x 40 m)
Used bedding area (20 m x 60 m)
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 19
b) Provide a detailed description of the listed activities associated with the project as applied for
Listed activity as described in GN R.983, 984 and 985
Description of project activity
Example: GN R.983 Activity 12(iii): The development of a bridge exceeding 100 square metres where such construction occurs within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse, excluding where such development will occur within existing roads or roads reserve.
A bridge measuring 10m in length, 12 metres wide will be built over the Crocodile river
GN.R.327, Activity 5 (ii) and (iv): The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the concentration of (ii) more than 5 000 poultry per facility situated outside an urban area, excluding chicks younger than 20 days and (iv) more than 25000 chicks younger than 20 days per facility situated outside an urban area.
The concentration of 40 000 chickens per cycle.
GN.R.327, Activity 27: The clearance of an area of 1 hectare or more, but less than 20 hectares of indigenous vegetation, except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for- i) the undertaking of a linear activity; or ii) maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan.
The development of a 1.6 hectare broiler facility with associated infrastructure including a road, storage unit, workers quarters and office.
GN.R.324, Activity 12(h) (iv): The clearance of 300 square metres or more of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with the maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance plan in North West within critical biodiversity areas identified in in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority.
The development of a 1.6 hectare broiler facility with associated infrastructure including a road, storage unit, workers quarters and office.
c) Property description/physical address
Where a large number of properties are involved (e.g. linear activities) please attach a full list to this application including the same information as indicated above.
Province North West
District Municipality Bojanala Platinum District Municipality
Local Municipality Moretele Local Municipality
Ward Number(s) Ward 5
Farm name and number Jonathan 175-JQ
Portion number Portion 40
21 digit Surveyor General Code BOJQ00000000017500040
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 20
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 21
A.2 FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
“alternatives”, in relation to a proposed activity, means different means of meeting the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may include alternatives to— (a) the property on which or location where it is proposed to undertake the activity; (b) the type of activity to be undertaken; (c) the design or layout of the activity; (d) the technology to be used in the activity; (e) the operational aspects of the activity; and (f) the option of not implementing the activity. Describe alternatives that are considered in this application as required by EIA Regulation, 2017 Appendix 1(h). Alternatives should include a consideration of all possible means by which the purpose and need of the proposed activity (NOT PROJECT) could be accomplished in the specific instance taking account of the interest of the applicant in the activity. The no-go alternative must in all cases be included in the assessment phase as the baseline against which the impacts of the other alternatives are assessed. The determination of whether site or activity (including different processes, etc.) or both is appropriate needs to be informed by the specific circumstances of the activity and its environment. After receipt of this report the, competent authority may also request the applicant to assess additional alternatives that could possibly accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed activity if it is clear that realistic alternatives have not been considered to a reasonable extent. Should the alternatives include different locations and lay-outs, the co-ordinates of the different alternatives must be provided. The co-ordinates should be in degrees, minutes and seconds using the Hartebeeshoek94 WGS84 co-ordinate system. a) Site alternatives List alternative sites, if applicable.
Site Alternatives Description
Alternative Site 1 (preferred or only site alternative)
The DEA commissioned the CSIR to run the “Special Needs and Skills Development (SNSD) Programme” which is aimed at providing pro bono Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for people who are classified as special needs clients/applicants, specifically Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs), Community Trusts, Individuals or Government Programmes. The CSIR received an application from Jam rock (Pty) Ltd under the SNSD Programme. The CSIR identified Jam Rock (Pty) Ltd as a client or a special needs applicant and has agreed to assist them with acquiring Environmental Authorization for the project on a pro bono basis, including the cost of the basic assessment, specialist studies, site visits and human resources. Jam Rock is a 100% black owned entity supported by government funding. The applicant has applied for funding through Land Bank which support to previously disadvantaged individuals who do not have the start-up capital to launch their own enterprise. Thus, the site which is being investigated in this report is the only site available to this entity and there are no available alternative sites to be considered.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 22
Alternative Site 2
Alternative Site 3
Site Co-ordinates
Latitude (S):
Longitude (E):
Alternative S1 (preferred or only site
alternative)
25o 16′ 0.184″ 27o 52′ 59.8″
Alternative S2 (if any)
Alternative S3 (if any)
In the case of linear activities:
Alternative: Latitude (S): Longitude (E):
Alternative S1 (preferred or only route
alternative)
Starting point of the activity
Middle/Additional point of the activity
End point of the activity
Alternative S2 (if any)
Starting point of the activity
Middle/Additional point of the activity
End point of the activity
Alternative S3 (if any) ′ ″
Starting point of the activity
Middle/Additional point of the activity
End point of the activity
For route alternatives that are longer than 500m, please provide an addendum with co-ordinates taken
every 250 metres along the route for each alternative alignment.
In the case of an area being under application, please provide the co-ordinates of the corners of the site
as indicated on the lay-out map provided in Appendix A.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 23
b) Lay-out alternatives
Alternatives Description
Alternative 1 (preferred or only alternative)
The layout of the proposed project has been carefully informed by the findings of the Ecological Impact Assessment and the Heritage Impact Assessment (Appendix G) so as to avoid sensitive areas and loss of species of conservation concern. Furthermore the development is within areas that have already been transformed previously to limit the disturbance of natural habitats.
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
c) Technology alternatives
Alternatives Description
Alternative 1 (preferred or only alternative)
The following measures will be used as part of the resource efficiency of the proposed development: Large fans will be used as a method of cooling, mainly because they have the ability to move air faster than small fans. These fans will be maintained regularly to ensure that they operate efficiently. Furthermore energy saving light bulbs will be used for the development; the use of this energy saving bulbs will improve the efficiency of the development. Furthermore sensor lights will be used thus reducing the energy usage required for lighting.
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
d) Other alternatives (e.g. scheduling, demand, input, scale and design alternatives)
Alternatives Description
Alternative 1 (preferred or only alternative)
The proposed development is within a previously transformed agricultural land thus suitable for agricultural related projects such as chicken broilers. The nature of the project was determined based on the farming experience, need and knowledge of the applicant in terms of poultry production, the need of chicken broilers as well as funding opportunities available for the development. Furthermore the operating plan for the proposed project has been informed by extensive market research and an assessment of the need of the products that will be produced.
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 24
e) No-go alternative
Should the No-Go Option be implemented, the site would maintain itsstatus quo. As such, the No-Go Option would not be environmentally, socially or economically feasible in the long-term and is thus not deemed feasible. However, the No-Go Option is nevertheless considered and assessed in relation to the potential implications of the proposed project, as required in terms of NEMA and its EIA Regulations
f) Please motivate for preferred site, activity and technology alternative
Motivation for the proposed site alternative as well as exclusion of alternatives: Site location and layout alternatives The DEA commissioned the CSIR to run the “Special Needs and Skills Development (SNSD) Programme” which is aimed at providing pro bono Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for people who are classified as special needs clients/applicants, specifically Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs), Community Trusts, Individuals or Government Programmes. The CSIR received an application from Jam Rock (Pty) Ltd under the SNSD Programme. The CSIR identified Jam Rock as a client or a special needs applicant and has agreed to assist them with acquiring Environmental Authorization for the project on a pro bono basis, including the cost of the basic assessment, specialist studies, site visits and human resources. Jam Rock is a 100% black owned entity supported by government funding. The applicant has applied for funding through Land Bank which support to previously disadvantaged individuals who do not have the start-up capital to launch their own enterprise. Thus, the site which is being investigated in this report is the only site available to this entity and there are no available alternative sites to be considered. The layout of the proposed project has been carefully informed by the findings of the Ecological Impact Assessment and the Heritage Impact Assessment (Appendix G) so as to avoid sensitive areas and loss of species of conservation concern. Furthermore the development is within areas that have already been transformed previously to limit the disturbance of natural habitats. Design, technology & activity alternatives The proposed development is within a previously transformed agricultural land thus suitable for agricultural related projects such as chicken broilers. The nature of the project was determined based on the farming experience, need and knowledge of the applicant in terms of poultry production, the need of chicken broilers as well as funding opportunities available for the development. Furthermore the operating plan for the proposed project has been informed by extensive market research and an assessment of the need of the products that will be produced. In terms of the economic viability, the project does not make use of major technologies, which in turn results in the proposed development requiring very little energy. The following measures will be used as part of the resource efficiency of the proposed development: Cooling efficiency Large fans will be used as a method of cooling, mainly because they have the ability to move air faster than small fans. These fans will be maintained regularly to ensure that they operate efficiently. Lighting efficiency Energy saving light bulbs will be used for the development; the use of this energy saving bulbs will improve the efficiency of the development. Furthermore sensor lights will be used thus reducing the energy usage required for lighting.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 25
All waste from the chicken broiler will be re-cycled into fertilizer and sold to the local community as manure for vegetable gardens. The poultry will be sold locally and the jobs being created by the proposed development will be sourced to local communities. The operations of this facility will be under constant supervision. In addition, the project design, technology and operations will make use of Agricultural Technical Support of the South African Poultry Association (SAPA). Thus, due to the nature of the industry, the support structures and the knowledge and experience of Jam Rock, the proposed project alternatives are the only viable alternatives to take forward to the Impact Assessment phase.
Paragraphs 3 – 13 below should be completed for each alternative.
A.3 PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY
a) Indicate the physical size of the preferred activity/technology as well as alternative activities/technologies (footprints):
Alternative: Size of the activity:
Alternative A11 (preferred activity alternative) m2
Alternative A2 (if any)
Alternative A3 (if any)
or, for linear activities: Alternative: Length of the activity:
Alternative A1 (preferred activity alternative) m
Alternative A2 (if any) m
Alternative A3 (if any) m
b) Indicate the size of the alternative sites or servitudes (within which the above footprints will
occur): Alternative: Size of the site/servitude:
Alternative A1 (preferred activity alternative) m2
Alternative A2 (if any) m2
Alternative A3 (if any) m2
A.4 SITE ACCESS
Does ready access to the site exist? YES
If NO, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built m
Describe the type of access road planned:
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 26
Include the position of the access road on the site plan and required map, as well as an indication of the road in relation to the site.
A.5 LOCALITY MAP
An A3 locality map must be attached to the back of this document, as Appendix A. The scale of the locality map must be relevant to the size of the development (at least 1:50 000. For linear activities of more than 25 kilometres, a smaller scale e.g. 1:250 000 can be used. The scale must be indicated on the map.). The map must indicate the following:
an accurate indication of the project site position as well as the positions of the alternative sites, if any;
indication of all the alternatives identified;
closest town(s;)
the accurate indication of the site in relation to closest protected environments or national parks (i.e. within 2.5 km)
road access from all major roads in the area;
road names or numbers of all major roads as well as the roads that provide access to the site(s);
all roads within a 1km radius of the site or alternative sites; and
a north arrow;
a legend; and
locality GPS co-ordinates (Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in degrees, minutes and seconds using the Hartebeeshoek94 WGS84 co-ordinate system
A.6 LAYOUT/ROUTE PLAN
A detailed site or route plan(s) must be prepared for each alternative site or alternative activity. It must be attached as Appendix B to this document. The site or route plans must indicate the following:
the property boundaries and numbers of all the properties within 50 metres of the site;
the current land use as well as the land use zoning of the site;
the current land use as well as the land use zoning each of the properties adjoining the site or sites;
the exact position of each listed activity applied for (including alternatives);
servitude(s) indicating the purpose of the servitude;
a legend; and
a north arrow.
A.7 SENSITIVITY MAP
The layout/route plan as indicated above must be overlain with a sensitivity map that indicates all the sensitive areas associated with the site, including, but not limited to:
watercourses;
the 1:100 year flood line (where available or where it is required by Department of Water and Sanitation);
ridges;
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 27
for gentle slopes the 1 metre contour intervals must be indicated on the plan and whenever the slope of the site exceeds 1:10, the 500mm contours must be indicated on the plan; and
cultural and historical features;
areas with indigenous vegetation (even if it is degraded or infested with alien species); and
critical biodiversity areas and ecological support area.
protected areas (e.g Magaliesberg Protected Environment, Pilanesberg National Park etc.) The sensitivity map must also cover areas within 100m of the site and must be part of Appendix B.
A.8 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Colour photographs from the centre of the site must be taken in at least the eight major compass directions with a description of each photograph. Photographs must be attached under Appendix C to this report. It must be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site, if applicable.
A.9 FACILITY ILLUSTRATION
A detailed illustration of the activity must be provided at a scale of at least 1:200 as Appendix D for activities that include structures. The illustrations must be to scale and must represent a realistic image of the planned activity. The illustration must give a representative view of the activity.
A.10 ACTIVITY MOTIVATION
Motivate and explain the need and desirability of the activity (including demand for the activity):
Is the activity permitted in terms of the property’s existing land use rights?
YES NO Please explain
The proposed development site is not administered by any Town planning Scheme. From the municipality’s record the property does not have any zoning in terms of the regulations. As such the development of the chicken broiler can be permitted.
Will the activity be in line with the following?
(a) Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) YES
The agricultural sector in North West has been identified as the backbone of rural economy; this is mainly because it has the potential to improve food security as well as to stimulate economic growth within the province. The proposed development will contribute towards the agricultural growth of the province in terms of job creation, positive trade balance for agricultural growth as well as skills development. The framework also acknowledges the significant role of emerging farmers towards agricultural production.
(b) Urban edge / Edge of Built environment for the area NO
The proposed development is situated within the rural areas of Moretele Local municipality.
(c) Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and Spatial Development Framework (SDF) of the Local Municipality (e.g. would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing approved and credible municipal IDP and SDF?).
YES
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 28
According to the IDP of Moretele Local municipality, agriculture has become a focal point in all economic development prospects for the municipality. Furthermore, the strategic objectives outlined in the IDP have identified agricultural development within the municipality as key performance indicator to achieving economic growth. The proposed development promotes agricultural development and aligns with these objectives.
(d) Approved Structure Plan of the Municipality Please explain
(e) An Environmental Management Framework (EMF) adopted by the Department (e.g. Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing environmental management priorities for the area and if so, can it be justified in terms of sustainability considerations?)
YES NO Please explain
According to the Draft environmental management By Law of the Moretele Municipality, The municipality is yet to develop a sensitive habitat management and conservation plan. In addition, The environmental management By law also outlines the principles of NEMA which promotes development that is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. The undertaking of the Basic Assessment ensures that negative environmental impacts are avoided and minimised where possible.
(f) Any other Plans (e.g. Guide Plan) NO
The EAP is not aware of any other plans within the proposed development site
Is the land use (associated with the activity being applied for) considered within the timeframe intended by the existing approved SDF agreed to by the relevant environmental authority (i.e. is the proposed development in line with the projects and programmes identified as priorities within the credible IDP)?
YES NO Please explain
Agriculture is currently a focal point in developmental prospects within the municipality. As such the proposed development of a chicken broiler aligns with the priorities identified in the IDP.
Does the community/area need the activity and the associated land use concerned (is it a societal priority)? (This refers to the strategic as well as local level (e.g. development is a national priority, but within a specific local context it could be inappropriate.)
YES
According to the IDP, the communities within this municipality have identified poultry as a priority need that contributes towards local economic development and job creation.
Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently available (at the time of application), or must additional capacity be created to cater for the development? (Confirmation by the relevant Municipality in this regard must be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix E.)
YES
The applicant shall lodge an application with Eskom for electricity needs of the project. Furthermore the applicant will use groundwater. An application for a Water use License shall be lodged with the Department of Water and Sanitation.
Is this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of the municipality, and if not what will the implication is on the infrastructure planning of the municipality (priority and placement of services and opportunity costs)? (Comment by the relevant Municipality in this regard must be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix I.)
Please explain
No additional connection shall be required, the site already has infrastructure for the supply of electricity. The applicant shall lodge an application for additional capacity.
Is this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national concern or importance?
YES
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 29
The proposed development aims to address challenges of food security in South Africa on a local scale. This shall be done through rural economic growth, maintenance of positive trade balance for primary agricultural products as well as skills development and training for the local community.
Do location factors favour this land use (associated with the activity applied for) at this place? (This relates to the contextualisation of the proposed land use on this site within its broader context.)
YES
The proposed development is within low-moderate environmental sensitive area; furthermore it has a history of agricultural practices as such providing a suitable location for the broiler houses.
Is the development the best practicable environmental option for this land/site?
YES
The proposed development site is not pristine; it has already been transformed as a result of past agricultural practices. The development footprint of the site has been carefully informed by the sensitivities on site and will occur in areas of low-moderate sensitivities ensuring minimal destruction of important flora and fauna.
Will the benefits of the proposed land use/development outweigh the negative impacts of it?
YES
The project benefits outweigh the negative impacts; the project will make a positive contribution to sustainable economic growth, skills development and employment opportunities in the Moretele Local Municipality. Furthermore it will be undertaken in a manner that aims to minimise environmental impacts of the chicken broiler.
Will the proposed land use/development set a precedent for similar activities in the area (local municipality)?
YES
Will any person’s rights be negatively affected by the proposed activity/ies?
NO
The project will not affect the rights of the local community; in fact it will economically benefit the local community by creating job opportunities.
Will the proposed activity/ies compromise the “urban edge” as defined by the local municipality?
NO
The proposed project is located outside the urban edge of the Ventersdorp Local Municipality.
Will the proposed activity/ies contribute to any of the 17 Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPS)?
NO
The proposed development is on a small scale and does not contribute towards the Strategic Integrated projects.
What will the benefits be to society in general and to the local communities? Please explain
The benefit of the project entails food security and skills development and training for the local community.
Any other need and desirability considerations related to the proposed activity? Please explain
No
How does the project fit into the National Development Plan for 2030? Please explain
The proposed development aims to maintain and increase South Africa's ability to meet its national food requirements, and also seeks to eliminate inequalities and poverty amongst households. According to Stats SA, about 14.3 million South Africans are vulnerable to food insecurity. As such the proposed development feeds into the food security stream. In addition, the main goals highlighted in the NDP which relate to the proposed project are employment and adequate nutrition. Chapter 6 of the National Development Plan highlights an “inclusive rural economy” and the objectives of this plan are to create jobs in agriculture, maintain a positive trade balance for primary and processed agricultural products and activating rural economies through service to small and micro farmers. As such the proposed development of the chicken broiler aligns with these goals.
Please describe how the general objectives of Integrated Environmental Management as set out in Section 23 of NEMA as amended have been taken into account.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 30
The general objectives of Integrated Environmental Management were taken into account by considering all the potential negative and positive impacts of the proposed project on both the biophysical and socio-economic environments. In order to avoid potentially significant impacts, specialist inputs were obtained in relation to terrestrial and aquatic ecology. Based on the findings of the specialist studies a number of recommendations / mitigation measures have been identified for consideration in further project design and implementation. The public and authorities will be given adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed project and to participate in the Basic Assessment Process
Please describe how the principles of environmental management as set out in Section 2 of NEMA as amended have been taken into account.
The basic needs of landowners and the public were taken into account during the planning phase of the proposed project, which aims to stimulate economic growth, create employment opportunities and make significant contribution towards food security. Minimisation of potential negative impacts and optimisation of potential positive impacts will be ensured by way of effective implementation of the Construction EMPr. Thus the proposed project is deemed to be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.
A.11 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES
List all legislation, policies and/or guidelines of any sphere of government that are applicable to the application as contemplated in the EIA regulations, if applicable:
Title of legislation, policy or guideline
Applicability to the project Administering authority Date
National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107
of 1998).
The proposed development triggers listed activities within this
act
National Government, and National
Department of Environmental Affairs
1998
National Environmental Management Act EIA
Regulations (7 April 2017)
A number of listed activities have been identified that have
triggered the need for a Basic Assessment in terms of these
regulations
National Government, and National Department of Environmental Affairs
2017
National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998).
The proposed development uses groundwater
Department of Water Affairs
1998
The National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No 25 of 1999) as amended, particularly Chapter
II, Section 38
The proposed development site has graves.
South African Heritage Resource Agency
1999
National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act,
2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004)
The NEMBA aims to conserve and provide management of
biodiversity in the country. The proposed development site is
within a critical biodiversity area.
National Government, and National Department of Environmental Affairs
2004
A.12 WASTE, EFFLUENT, EMISSION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT
a) Solid waste management
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 31
Will the activity produce solid construction waste during the construction/initiation phase?
YES
If YES, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? 1400 m3
How will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)?
The following measures shall be undertaken to ensure disposal of solid waste: A. The applicant shall appoint someone with overall project authority committed to recycling. He/she can issue a statement explaining that construction waste recycling is important to the project and why. This statement can be used in many ways – in worker training materials etc. B. Put recycling into specifications and into all contracts – allocate bins for different materials, assign haulers or vendors to collect materials place a bin on site. This will also generate money back into the project that can be used to buy sports gear for the local school or other charity activities. C. Establish who will control the debris. Establish one project authority, usually the construction manager or general contractor, to control all project waste, provide dumpsters and waste services for the project, and enforce recycling rules with all contractors (Make sure to put a trash container near recycling containers or the recycling container may become a trash container). For example the department of Public Works may use debris from building to strengthen the roads leading to the site as it becomes muddy and slippery during rains. D. Include waste reduction, reuse and recycling from the start a. Order materials just in time, send back extra inventory, utilize reused building materials, consider ways you can reduce and reuse waste during construction and put these methods into contracts b. Ask suppliers to reduce packaging, send you recyclable packaging or take packaging back c. Discuss and encourage reduction, reuse and recycling at pre-construction meetings E. Select a coordinator – designate a staff member (typically construction project manager with the cooperation of the site superintendent) to promote and monitor the recycling program. The coordinator will educate staff and subcontractors.
Where will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)?
A. Recyclable materials will be collected or delivered to haulers (recyclers): Who in turn give monetary remuneration for materials such as scrap metal. B. Debris such as brick, asphalt and concrete to be scattered over road to avoid muddiness during rain C. Assign dumpsters (bins) by reputable waste management companies e.g. Waste Group who will periodically pick the bin when it’s full for disposing. This will remove materials from the construction site that is otherwise left behind by the haulers.
Will the activity produce solid waste during its operational phase? YES
If YES, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? 3900m3
How will the solid waste be disposed of (describe)?
Most of the solid waste will be chicken manure, cults or mortalities, normal waste like household rubbish and consumables like sacks or even used coal during winter time. a. Chicken manure: Aged for two to three months it’s perfect manure for our crops in the neighbouring farm that we also own and grow crops in. Other than that it sells for R600 per van load market price where we operate, money that could be used to pay casual staff members during the cleaning period. b. Cults and mortalities: Easily disposed by pigs that we will have on our other farm as we aim to grow production of animal stock or sell them to the nearby crocodile farm and utilise the money to service machinery on the farm. c. Normal waste and household rubbish: Disposed of into municipal waste stream. d. Sacks: Will be reused when packaging manure for sale at R50 per sack market price or just storing of the manure until it’s ready to be sprayed onto the garden. e. Used coal: With a small mixture of cement it’s used to make bricks which can be used to increase the number of pig houses on our other farm.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 32
If the solid waste will be disposed of into a municipal waste stream, indicate which registered landfill site will be used.
Municipal waste collected and dumped at the Moretele landfill (dumpsite)
Where will the solid waste be disposed of if it does not feed into a municipal waste stream (describe)?
If for some reason the municipal waste is not collected periodically then the local authority will be immediately and the councillor asked to intervene and investigate.
If the solid waste (construction or operational phases) will not be disposed of in a registered landfill site or be taken up in a municipal waste stream, then the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.
Can any part of the solid waste be classified as hazardous in terms of the NEM:WA? YES NO
If YES, inform the competent authority and request a change to an application for scoping and EIA. An application for a waste permit in terms of the NEM:WA must also be submitted with this application.
Is the activity that is being applied for a solid waste handling or treatment facility? YES NO
If YES, then the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA. An application for a waste permit in terms of the NEM:WA must also be submitted with this application.
b) Liquid effluent
Will the activity produce effluent, other than normal sewage, that will be disposed of in a municipal sewage system?
NO
If YES, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? m3
Will the activity produce any effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of on site? YES NO
If YES, describe the type of effluent and the disposal mechanism/method
Will the activity produce effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility?
NO
If YES, provide the particulars of the facility:
Facility name:
Contact person:
Postal address:
Postal code:
Telephone: Cell:
E-mail: Fax:
Describe the measures that will be taken to ensure the optimal reuse or recycling of waste water, if any:
c) Emissions into the atmosphere
Will the activity release emissions into the atmosphere other that exhaust emissions and dust associated with construction phase activities?
NO
If YES, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government? NO
If YES, the applicant must consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 33
If NO, describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration:
d) Waste Licence/Registration
Will any aspect of the activity produce waste that will require a waste licence/registration in terms of the NEM:WA?
NO
If YES, please submit evidence that an application for a waste licence/registration has been submitted to the competent authority e) Generation of noise
Will the activity generate noise? YES
If YES, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government? NO
If YES, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA. If NO, describe the noise in terms of type and level:
Noise during construction by trucks
A.13 WATER USE
Please indicate the source(s) of water that will be used for the activity by ticking the appropriate box(es):
Groundwater
If water is to be extracted from groundwater, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural feature, please indicate the volume that will be extracted per month:
29 400 litres
Does the activity require a water use authorisation (general authorisation or water use license) from the Department of Water and Sanitation?
YES
If YES, please provide proof that the application has been submitted to the Department of Water and Sanitation.
A.14 ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Describe the design measures, if any that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy efficient:
The following measures will be used as part of the resource efficiency of the proposed development: Cooling efficiency Large fans will be used as a method of cooling, mainly because they have the ability to move air faster than small fans. These fans will be maintained regularly to ensure that they operate efficiently. Lighting efficiency Energy saving light bulbs will be used for the development; the use of this energy saving bulbs will improve the efficiency of the development. Furthermore sensor lights will be used thus reducing the energy usage required for lighting.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 34
Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design of the activity, if any:
Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section? NO
If YES, please complete the form entitled “Details of specialist and declaration of interest” for the specialist appointed and attach in Appendix F.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 35
SECTION B SITE/AREA/PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION Important notes:
1. For linear activities (pipelines, etc) as well as activities that cover very large sites, it may be necessary to complete this section for each part of the site that has a significantly different environment. In such cases please complete copies of Section B and indicate the area, as it appears on the Site Plan.
2. Paragraphs 1 - 6 below must be completed for each alternative.
Current land-use zoning as per local municipality IDP/records:
The proposed development site is not administered by any Town planning Scheme
In instances where there is more than one current land-use zoning, please attach a list of current land use zonings that also indicate which portions each use pertains to, to this application.
Is a change of land-use or a consent use application required? YES NO
B.1 GRADIENT OF THE SITE
Indicate the general gradient of the site. Alternative S1:
Flat
Alternative S2 (if any):
Alternative S3 (if any):
B.2 LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE
Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site:
2.1 Ridgeline 2.4 Closed valley 2.7 Undulating plain / low hills √
2.2 Plateau 2.5 Open valley 2.8 Dune
2.3 Side slope of hill/mountain 2.6 Plain √ 2.9 Seafront
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 36
B.3 GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE
Is the site(s) located on any of the following? Alternative
S1: Alternative S2
(if any): Alternative S3
(if any):
Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) NO
Dolomite, sinkhole or doline areas NO
Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies)
NO
Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil
NO
Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) NO
Soils with high clay content (clay fraction more than 40%)
NO
Any other unstable soil or geological feature NO
An area sensitive to erosion YES
If you are unsure about any of the above or if you are concerned that any of the above aspects may be an issue of concern in the application, an appropriate specialist should be appointed to assist in the completion of this section. Information in respect of the above will often be available as part of the project information or at the planning sections of local authorities. Where it exists, the 1:50 000 scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by the Council for Geo Science may also be consulted.
B.4 GROUNDCOVER
Indicate the types of groundcover present on the site. The location of all identified rare or endangered species or other elements should be accurately indicated on the site plan(s).
Natural veld - good condition
E
Natural veld with scattered aliens
E
Natural veld with heavy alien infestation
E
Veld dominated by alien species
E
Building or other
structure Bare soil
If any of the boxes marked with an “E “is ticked, please consult an appropriate specialist to assist in the completion of this section if the environmental assessment practitioner doesn’t have the necessary expertise.
B.5 SURFACE WATER
Indicate the surface water present on and or adjacent to the site and alternative sites?
Perennial River NO
Non-Perennial River NO
Permanent Wetland NO
Seasonal Wetland YES
Artificial Wetland NO
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 37
If any of the boxes marked YES or UNSURE is ticked, please provide a description of the relevant watercourse.
Figure 1: Potential wetland areas
The nearby wetland on the main access road to the site - given the national, provincial and local importance of wetlands (Figure 1). On a national scale all wetlands are Protected. Although the present Eco scan did not entail a wetland assessment, the nearby wetland appears to be Largely Natural, and its highest scoring ecosystem service is probably maintenance of biodiversity including potential CI faunal species such as the NT Giant Bullfrog.
B.6 LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA
Indicate land uses and/or prominent features that currently occur within a 500m radius of the site and give description of how this influences the application or may be impacted upon by the application:
Natural area
Low density residential
Agriculture
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 38
If any of the boxes marked with an “N “are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity? Specify and explain
If any of the boxes marked with an "AN" are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity? Specify and explain:
If any of the boxes marked with an "H" are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity? Specify and explain:
Does the proposed site (including any alternative sites) fall within any of the following:
Critical Biodiversity Area (as per provincial conservation plan) YES
Core area of a protected area? NO
Buffer area of a protected area? NO
Planned expansion area of an existing protected area? NO
Existing offset area associated with a previous Environmental Authorisation? NO
If the answer to any of these questions was YES, a map indicating the affected area must be included in Appendix B (as part of sensitivity map).
B.7 BIODIVERSITY
Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the biodiversity occurring on the site and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies. To assist with the identification of the biodiversity occurring on site and the ecosystem status consult http://bgis.sanbi.org or [email protected]. Information is also available on compact disc (cd) from the Biodiversity-GIS Unit, Ph (021) 799 8698. This information may be updated from time to time and it is the applicant/ EAP’s responsibility to ensure that the latest version is used. A map of the relevant biodiversity information (including an indication of the habitat conditions as per (b) below) and must be provided as an overlay map to the property/site plan as Appendix B to this report. a) Indicate the applicable biodiversity planning categories of all areas on site and indicate the
reason(s) provided in the biodiversity plan for the selection of the specific area as part of the specific category)
Systematic Biodiversity Planning Category If CBA or ESA, indicate the reason(s) for its
selection in biodiversity plan
Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA)
This CBA was likely assigned because the site is situated within the Springbokvlakte Thornveld Endangered vegetation type and Vulnerable Threatened Ecosystem. Available satellite imagery and our field surveys have confirmed, however, that virtually the entire site comprises regenerating previously cultivated land.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 39
b) Indicate and describe the habitat condition on site
Habitat Condition
Percentage of habitat
condition class (adding up to
100%)
Description and additional Comments and Observations (including additional insight into condition, e.g. poor land
management practises, presence of quarries, grazing, harvesting regimes etc).
Natural %
Near Natural (includes areas with low to moderate level of alien invasive plants)
2.83 %
Possible artificial drainage and Acacia- Boscia Tree Clumps
Degraded (includes areas heavily invaded by alien plants)
%
Transformed (includes cultivation, dams, urban, plantation, roads, etc)
97.17 %
Transformed - Acacia Open Woodland (old fields)
c) Complete the table to indicate: (i) the type of vegetation, including its ecosystem status, present on the site; and (ii) whether an aquatic ecosystem is present on site.
Terrestrial Ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystems
Ecosystem threat status as per the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004)
Critical
Wetland (including rivers, depressions, channelled and unchannelled wetlands, flats, seeps pans, and artificial wetlands)
Endangered
Vulnerable
NO
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 40
d) Please provide a description of the vegetation type and/or aquatic ecosystem present on site, including any important biodiversity features/information identified on site (e.g. threatened species and special habitats)
Figure 2: Vegetation units within the proposed development site
From the field investigations the study area was largely monospecific and almost the entire site had been previously farmed (over 95% - refer to Table 3 and Figure 2). Available aerial imagery from Google Earth dated back to 2009 and still showed past farming practices. Therefore it was very difficult to distinguish a diversity of habitat types. Large trees that have significance as roosting sites for species such as Owls and Raptors were mapped. A small drainage line within the site was also evident but showed no signs of soil wetness or vegetation wetland indicators. During the field investigation, wetlands with limited slope to the north were flooded; however, no pooling of water was evident on the site.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 41
Table 3: Vegetation units within the proposed development site
Vegetation Community Conservation Significance Area - Ha Area -%
Drainage Habitat
Possible Artificial Drainage Moderate-Low 0.079 0.84
Tree Clumps
Acacia – Boscia Tree Clumps Moderate 0.19 1.99 Transformed Habitat
Transformed - Acacia Open Woodland (old fields) Moderate-Low 8.92 95.28
Disturbed
Built-up Areas Low 0.033 0.35
Track Low 0.14 1.54
Although no Red Listed species were recorded, Ammocharis coranica is considered a Protected species under the Nature Conservation Ordinance, 12 of 1983 (Figure 3). Protected Species may not be cut, disturbed, damaged, and destroyed without obtaining a permit from North West Province or a delegated authority. However, recent legislation [which repeals the Ordinance] passed in January 2017, only weeks before the final compilation of this report, the Protected Status of species was revised and this species is no longer on the list.
Ammocharis coranica Ammocharis coranica
Figure 3: Photographs of Conservation Important plant species on Site
B.8 CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES
Are there any signs of culturally or historically significant elements, as defined in section 2 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, (Act No. 25 of 1999), including Archaeological or paleontological sites, on or close (within 20m) to the site? If YES, explain:
YES
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 42
Palaeontology The archaeological field study reported a flat, sandy land surface devoid of bedrock exposure. This lack of bedrock has meant that geological and palaeontological knowledge in this area stems largely from analysis of borehole data. Almond (2016:1) reports that the study area overlies the Irrigasie Formation which is comprised of “reddish-brown, readily-weathered mudrocks with subordinate sandstones and minor conglomerates”. The kinds of fossils known to occur in the area are primarily trace fossils, while fossil pollens and spores and very rare dinosaur bones have also been reported. No fossils were seen during the archaeological survey. Archaeology The survey showed that a very low density scatter of Stone Age artefacts was present throughout the general area. There was no focus to these artefacts and no ‘site’ could be delineated; the artefacts can be ascribed to background scatter. Most were made from quartzite and some displayed cobble cortex indicating that they were made from river cobbles. Because of their very widespread distribution and very low density, these finds are of minimal heritage significance. A ruined structure was located along the north-eastern boundary of the property. It was made from cement bricks. It is almost certainly less than 100 years of age and thus is not considered to be a heritage resource. It probably dates to the 1950s because historical aerial photography reveals that the area seemed unaltered in 1948-50 (the earliest available series), but by 1961 a number of ‘bright spots’ had appeared on the landscape. These spots indicate higher reflectivity from areas cleared of vegetation. One of these spots corresponds with the ruin. Another corresponds with the cement slab noted alongside the corrugated iron shack. Graves Two small informal cemeteries were located on the property. Each had three graves in it. The graves of the first were surrounded by cement bricks that were no doubt obtained from a nearby ruined structure made with the same bricks and located some 35 m away to the northwest. The graves are surrounded by a wire fence and aligned east-west. Because the ruin is relatively recent, the graves are also necessarily recent and must post-date the collapse of the brick structure. These graves are very likely less than 60 years of age and would thus not be regarded as heritage resources in terms of the NHRA. The second cemetery also has three graves in it. These graves are covered by stone mounds and are not enclosed by any fence. Two graves appear to be full (i.e. adult) size, while the third is far smaller and is likely that of a child. Larger stones have been placed at the head and foot of each grave. They are aligned east-west. These three graves are very likely older and perhaps completely unrelated to those in ‘Cemetery 1’. Cultural landscape A survey of historical aerial photography reveals that the landscape on the site was little used during the mid-twentieth century. However, the wider region does show evidence of occupation with small cultivated lands and (presumably stone-built) structures in the south and north respectively.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 43
If uncertain, conduct a specialist investigation by a recognised specialist in the field (archaeology or palaeontology) to establish whether there is such a feature(s) present on or close to the site. Briefly explain the findings of the specialist:
Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way? NO
Is it necessary to apply for a permit in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999)?
NO
If YES, please provide proof that this permit application has been submitted to SAHRA or the relevant provincial authority.
B.9 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTER
a) Local Municipality Please provide details on the socio-economic character of the local municipality in which the proposed site(s) are situated. Level of unemployment:
Figure 4 below depicts the employment status of the people within the Moretele Local Municipality. From the information provided, job recreation needs to be prioritised as only 26% of the population is employed, whereas 22% of the population is unemployed. The proposed development of a chicken broiler facility will boost the economic growth of the municipality.
Figure 4: Employment status within the Moretele Local Municipality
26%
22%
8%
44%
Employment Status within Moretele Local Municipality
Employed Unemployed Discouraged Work Seeker Not Economically Active
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 44
Economic profile of local municipality:
Moretele Local municipality has a low percentage of economically active individuals; this is an area that needs growth. The proposed development of a chicken broiler facility will create opportunities for the local people and hopefully motivate the people who are not economically active to start playing a role in economic growth. Figure 5 below depicts the percentage of average household income within the area. According to this, almost 20% of the population has no income.
Figure 5: Percentage of average household income
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Percentage of Average Household Income
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 45
Level of education:
The majority of the people within this municipality had primary schooling or no schooling at all. Only 1.4 percent of the population have higher education. Figure 6 below shows the percentages of the level of employment within the municipal.
Figure 6: Level of education within Moretele Local Municipality
b) Socio-economic value of the activity
What is the expected capital value of the activity on completion? R11 586 180.00
What is the expected yearly income that will be generated by or as a result of the activity?
R2 414 274.00
Will the activity contribute to service infrastructure? YES NO
Is the activity a public amenity? YES NO
How many new employment opportunities will be created in the development and construction phase of the activity/ies?
+-200
What is the expected value of the employment opportunities during the development and construction phase?
R2 414 274.00
What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? 70%
How many permanent new employment opportunities will be created during the operational phase of the activity?
11 permanent employees
What is the expected current value of the employment opportunities during the first 10 years?
R 1 591 380.00
What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? 100%
3%
42%
6%
34%
13%
2% 0%
Level of Education
No Schooling
Some Primary
Completed Primary
Some Secondary
Completed Secondary
Higher Education
Not Applicable
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 46
B.10 SPECIALIST(S) CONSULTATION
Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section? YES
If YES, please complete the form entitled “Details of specialist and declaration of interest” for each specialist thus appointed and attach it in Appendix F. All specialist reports must be contained in Appendix G and must meet the requirement in Appendix 6 of EIA Regulations, 2017.
SECTION C IMPACT ASSESSMENT The assessment of impacts must adhere to the minimum requirements in the EIA Regulations, 2017, and should take applicable official guidelines into account. The issues raised by interested and affected parties should also be addressed in the assessment of impacts.
C.1 IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING AND DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONAL, DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASES AS WELL AS PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OF IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
Provide a summary and anticipated significance of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that are likely to occur as a result of the planning and design phase, construction phase, operational phase, decommissioning and closure phase, including impacts relating to the choice of site/activity/technology alternatives as well as the mitigation measures that may eliminate or reduce the potential impacts listed. This impact assessment must be applied to all the identified alternatives to the activities identified in Section A(2) of this report.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 47
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
Design and Layout
Direct Impacts Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Low (Negative)
Design measures to effectively control vehicle access, vehicle speed, dust, stormwater run-off, erosion and sedimentation on the road.
Implement the measures that were designed to control impacts on the road preferably during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
Loss of terrestrial vegetation and faunal habitat
Low (Negative)
Ensure that all infrastructure avoids all Very High and High sensitive areas
Clearly demarcate or fence in the construction site. Relocate CI plant and animal specimens from the construction footprint, with advice from an appropriate specialist.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing growing plants should be least.
Loss of CI or medicinal flora Low (Negative)
Obtain permits to remove CI species
Transplant CI and medicinally important floral specimens from the infrastructure footprint to suitable locations in the surrounding area.
Obtain guidance from a suitably qualified vegetation specialist or horticulturist regarding the collection, propagation/storage and transplantation of plants.
Loss of CI fauna Low (Negative)
Appoint an appropriate specialist to relocate CI fauna from vegetation, termitaria and soil that is removed from the infrastructure footprint.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Check open trenches for trapped animals (e.g. hedgehogs, reptiles and frogs), and relocate trapped animals with advice from an appropriate
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 48
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
specialist.
Prohibit disturbance and persecution (e.g. poaching) of fauna, and introduction of pets and other alien fauna (apart from the production chickens).
Provide notices and training to inform workers about dangerous animals (e.g. venomous snakes and scorpions) and prohibited activities (e.g. poaching)
Walk fence lines to remove snares.
Introduction and proliferation of alien species
Low (Negative)
Carefully regulate / limit access by vehicles and materials to the construction site. Demarcate or fence in the construction area.
Prohibit the introduction of domestic animals such as dogs and cats.
Remove any woody alien species that germinate.
Plant only locally indigenous flora if landscaping needs to be done
Keep construction activities neat and tidy. When complete, remove all sand piles and landscape all uneven ground while re-establishing a good topsoil layer
Remove Category species using mechanical methods, and minimize soil disturbance as far as possible.
Increased dust and erosion Low (Negative)
Limit vehicles, people and materials to the construction site.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
Revegetate denude areas with locally indigenous flora a.s.a.p.
Implement erosion protection measures on site. Measures could include bunding around soil stockpiles, and vegetation of areas not to be developed.
Implement effective and environmentally-friendly dust control
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 49
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
measures, such as mulching or periodic wetting.
Sensory disturbance of fauna Low (Negative)
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Minimize noise to limit its impact on calling and other sensitive fauna (e.g. frogs and Secretary bird).
Limit construction activities to day time hours
Minimize or eliminate security and construction lighting, to reduce the disturbance of nocturnal fauna.
Destruction of palaeontological material
Very Low (Negative)
If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Destruction of archaeological artefacts
Very Low (Negative)
If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Destruction of graves Low (Negative)
The two graveyards should be fenced off clearly and pointed out to all construction workers and other staff on site to ensure that impacts to them are avoided;
No construction work should occur within 10 m of any of the graves;
Emissions from dust generation and construction vehicles
Medium (Negative)
Ensure that cleared (excavated) areas and unpaved surfaces are sprayed with water (obtained from an approved source) to minimise dust generation.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 50
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
Approved soil stabilisers may be utilised to limit dust generation.
Ensure that construction vehicles travelling on unpaved roads do not exceed a speed limit of 40 km/hour.
Limit vehicles, people and materials to the construction site
Adequate dust control strategies should be applied to minimise dust deposition, for example: Periodic spraying of water on the entrance road when necessary
Potential spillage of by spillage or discharge of construction waste water
Low (Negative)
Ensure that adequate containment structures are provided for the storage of construction materials on site.
Ensure the adequate removal and disposal of construction waste and material
Potential Pollution of the surrounding water and ground as a result of generation of building rubble and waste scrap material
High (Negative)
Ensure that adequate containment structures are provided for the storage of construction materials on site.
Ensure the adequate removal and disposal of construction waste and material
Opportunities for employment and skills development
Medium (Positive)
Enhance the use of local labour and local skills as far as reasonably possible.
Where the required skills do not occur locally, and where appropriate and applicable, ensure that relevant local individuals are trained.
Ensure that an equitable percentage allocation is provided for local labour employment as well as specify the use of small-to-medium enterprises and training specifications in the Contractors contract.
Ensure that goods and services are sourced from the local and regional economy as far as reasonably possible.
Potential visual impacts as the result of construction activities
Low (Negative)
No specific mitigation measures are required other than standard construction site housekeeping and dust suppression. These are included below:
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 51
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
The contractor(s) should maintain good housekeeping on site to avoid litter and minimise waste.
Litter and rubble should be timeously removed from the construction site and disposed at a licenced waste disposal facility.
The project developer should demarcate construction boundaries and minimise areas of surface disturbance.
Appropriate plans should be in place to minimise fire hazards and dust generation.
Night lighting of the construction site should be minimised within requirements of safety and efficiency.
Potential noise impact as the result of the use of construction equipment
Medium (Negative)
Limit construction activities to day time hours
Potential impact on the safety of construction workers and Health injuries to construction personnel as a result of construction work
Medium (Negative)
Ensure that a skilled and competent Contractor is appointed during the construction phase. The Contractor must be evaluated during the tender/appointment process in terms of safety standards.
The Contractor must ensure that all construction personnel are provided with adequate PPE for use where appropriate.
The Contractor must undertake a Construction Phase Risk Assessment.
A Construction Site Manager or Safety Supervisor should be appointed, in conjunction with the project manager, to monitor all safety aspects during the construction phase. This could be the same person that is assigned to co-ordinate the construction traffic.
Traffic, congestion and potential for collisions
Low (Negative)
Ensure that roads are not closed during construction, which may restrict access for emergency services.
The Contractor must ensure that all construction personnel are provided with adequate PPE for use where appropriate
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 52
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
Construction Phase
Direct Impacts Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
High (Negative)
Design measures to effectively control vehicle access, vehicle speed, dust, stormwater run-off, erosion and sedimentation on the road.
Implement the measures that were designed to control impacts on the road preferably during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
Loss of terrestrial vegetation and faunal habitat
Medium (Negative)
Ensure that all infrastructure avoids all Very High and High sensitive areas
Clearly demarcate or fence in the construction site. Relocate CI plant and animal specimens from the construction footprint, with advice from an appropriate specialist.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing growing plants should be least.
Loss of CI or medicinal flora Medium (Negative)
Obtain permits to remove CI species
Transplant CI and medicinally important floral specimens from the infrastructure footprint to suitable locations in the surrounding area.
Obtain guidance from a suitably qualified vegetation specialist or horticulturist regarding the collection, propagation/storage and transplantation of plants.
Loss of CI fauna Medium (Negative)
Appoint an appropriate specialist to relocate CI fauna from vegetation, termitaria and soil that is removed from the infrastructure footprint.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Check open trenches for trapped animals (e.g. hedgehogs, reptiles and frogs), and relocate trapped animals with advice from an appropriate specialist.
Prohibit disturbance and persecution (e.g. poaching) of fauna, and
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 53
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
introduction of pets and other alien fauna (apart from the production chickens).
Provide notices and training to inform workers about dangerous animals (e.g. venomous snakes and scorpions) and prohibited activities (e.g. poaching)
Walk fence lines to remove snares.
Introduction and proliferation of alien species
High (Negative)
Carefully regulate / limit access by vehicles and materials to the construction site. Demarcate or fence in the construction area.
Prohibit the introduction of domestic animals such as dogs and cats.
Remove any woody alien species that germinate.
Plant only locally indigenous flora if landscaping needs to be done
Keep construction activities neat and tidy. When complete, remove all sand piles and landscape all uneven ground while re-establishing a good topsoil layer
Remove Category species using mechanical methods, and minimize soil disturbance as far as possible.
Increased dust and erosion Medium (Negative)
Limit vehicles, people and materials to the construction site.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
Revegetate denude areas with locally indigenous flora a.s.a.p.
Implement erosion protection measures on site. Measures could include bunding around soil stockpiles, and vegetation of areas not to be developed.
Implement effective and environmentally-friendly dust control measures, such as mulching or periodic wetting.
Sensory disturbance of fauna Medium (Negative)
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals,
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 54
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
should be least.
Minimize noise to limit its impact on calling and other sensitive fauna (e.g. frogs and Secretarybird).
Limit construction activities to day time hours
Minimize or eliminate security and construction lighting, to reduce the disturbance of nocturnal fauna.
Destruction of palaeontological material
Very Low (Negative)
If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Destruction of archaeological artefacts
Very Low (Negative)
If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Destruction of graves Low (Negative)
The two graveyards should be fenced off clearly and pointed out to all construction workers and other staff on site to ensure that impacts to them are avoided;
No construction work should occur within 10 m of any of the graves;
Emissions from dust generation and construction vehicles
Medium (Negative)
Ensure that cleared (excavated) areas and unpaved surfaces are sprayed with water (obtained from an approved source) to minimise dust generation.
Approved soil stabilisers may be utilised to limit dust generation.
Ensure that construction vehicles travelling on unpaved roads do not
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 55
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
exceed a speed limit of 40 km/hour.
Limit vehicles, people and materials to the construction site
Adequate dust control strategies should be applied to minimise dust deposition, for example: Periodic spraying of water on the entrance road when necessary
Potential spillage of by spillage or discharge of construction waste water
Low (Negative)
Ensure that adequate containment structures are provided for the storage of construction materials on site.
Ensure the adequate removal and disposal of construction waste and material
Potential Pollution of the surrounding water and ground as a result of generation of building rubble and waste scrap material
High (Negative)
Ensure that adequate containment structures are provided for the storage of construction materials on site.
Ensure the adequate removal and disposal of construction waste and material
Opportunities for employment and skills development
Medium
(Positive)
Enhance the use of local labour and local skills as far as reasonably possible.
Where the required skills do not occur locally, and where appropriate and applicable, ensure that relevant local individuals are trained.
Ensure that an equitable percentage allocation is provided for local labour employment as well as specify the use of small-to-medium enterprises and training specifications in the Contractors contract.
Ensure that goods and services are sourced from the local and regional economy as far as reasonably possible.
Potential visual impacts as the result of construction activities
Low (Negative)
No specific mitigation measures are required other than standard construction site housekeeping and dust suppression. These are included below:
The contractor(s) should maintain good housekeeping on site to avoid litter and minimise waste.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 56
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
Litter and rubble should be timeously removed from the construction site and disposed at a licenced waste disposal facility.
The project developer should demarcate construction boundaries and minimise areas of surface disturbance.
Appropriate plans should be in place to minimise fire hazards and dust generation.
Night lighting of the construction site should be minimised within requirements of safety and efficiency.
Potential noise impact as the result of the use of construction equipment
Medium (Negative)
Limit construction activities to day time hours
Potential impact on the safety of construction workers and Health injuries to construction personnel as a result of construction work
Medium (Negative)
Ensure that a skilled and competent Contractor is appointed during the construction phase. The Contractor must be evaluated during the tender/appointment process in terms of safety standards.
The Contractor must ensure that all construction personnel are provided with adequate PPE for use where appropriate.
The Contractor must undertake a Construction Phase Risk Assessment.
A Construction Site Manager or Safety Supervisor should be appointed, in conjunction with the project manager, to monitor all safety aspects during the construction phase. This could be the same person that is assigned to co-ordinate the construction traffic.
Traffic, congestion and potential for collisions
Low (Negative)
Ensure that roads are not closed during construction, which may restrict access for emergency services.
The Contractor must ensure that all construction personnel are provided with adequate PPE for use where appropriate
Operational Phase
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
High (Negative)
Monitor and maintain the road impact control measures to ensure that
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 57
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
they remain effective
Environmental contamination Medium (Negative)
Ensure that the facility is designed in accordance with international best practice norms, and with advice from an appropriate specialist, to ensure that there is no environmental contamination from effluent, fodder, carcasses and other waste, and to ensure that there is also effective storm water management
Adhere to best practice chicken husbandry and waste disposal norms
Establish appropriate emergency procedures for accidental contamination of the surroundings. Waste recycling should be incorporated into the facility’s operations as far as possible. Designate a secured, access restricted, signposted room for the storage of potentially hazardous substances such as herbicides, pesticides dips and medications. All hazardous waste should be disposed of at an appropriate licensed facility for this.
Rehabilitate contaminated areas a.s.a.p. in accordance with advice from appropriate contamination and environmental specialists
Educate workers regarding the handling of hazardous substances and about waste management and emergency procedures with regular training and notices and talks.
Poor / Inappropriate control of animal pests
High (Negative)
Ensure that there is effective storm water drainage around the facility
Ensure that the facility is sufficiently ventilated to keep floors, bedding, and fodder as dry as possible.
Prevent and manage unwanted animal access to fodder.
Check that fan louvers (if installed) work properly, and close fans completely when off.
Ensure that floors are sloped and slatted to facilitate drainage.
Screed concrete floors properly to seal all cracks and limit the pooling of effluent and water.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 58
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
Effectively maintain and seal all pipes and reservoirs containing slurry, to prevent animals from accessing the effluent.
Clean floors regularly.
Clean up excess fodder regularly from under troughs and feed bins.
Keep areas surrounding the facility free of spilled manure and litter.
Remove all trash, and sources of feed and water for pests from the outside perimeter of the facilities.
Keep weeds and grass mowed to 5cm or less immediately around the facilities, to reduce the prevalence of insects.
Electrocution devices are available to kill flies, while other mechanical devices include traps, sticky tapes or baited traps.
Control rodents through effective sanitation, rodent proofing and (as humane as possible) extermination.
Rodenticides are not advised.
Ensure that measures to control pests are tightly restricted to areas where these are problematic. Pest control measures should be taxon-specific. If necessary, advice should be sought from an appropriate specialist.
Disease transmission Medium (Negative)
Maintain appropriate pest control measures
Effectively maintain and seal all pipes and reservoirs containing slurry, to prevent animals from accessing the effluent.
Altered burning Medium (Negative)
Create safe storage on the premises for flammable materials. If artificial burning is considered necessary, establish and implement a fire management plan with emergency fire procedures.
Maintain an effective fire break between the facility and the surrounding natural environment.
Educate workers about the fire plan and emergency procedures with
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 59
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
regular training and notices
Introduction and proliferation of alien species
High (Negative)
Carefully regulate / limit access by vehicles and materials to the site
Prohibit the introduction of domestic animals such as dogs and cats.
Plant only locally indigenous flora if landscaping needs to be done.
Employ best practices regarding tilling of soil and weed management
Minimize the accumulation or dispersal of excess fodder on site.
Remove Category species using mechanical methods, and minimize soil disturbance as far as possible. Alien debris could be donated to a local community
Loss of CI or medicinal flora Medium (Negative)
Educate the personnel prior to operation, and with yearly refresher talks.
Sensory disturbance of fauna Medium (Negative)
Minimize essential lighting.
Ensure that all outdoor lights are angled downwards and/or fitted with hoods.
Avoid using metal halide, mercury or other bulbs that emit high UV (blue-white) light that is highly and usually fatally attractive to insects.
Use bulbs that emit warm, long wavelength (yellow-red) light, or use UV filters or glass housings on lamps to filter out UV.
Minimize unavoidable noise
Conduct regular maintenance of machinery and ventilation systems / fans (if any).
Destruction of palaeontological material
Very Low (Negative)
If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 60
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Destruction of archaeological artefacts
Very Low (Negative)
If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Destruction of graves Low (Negative)
The two graveyards should be fenced off clearly and pointed out to all construction workers and other staff on site to ensure that impacts to them are avoided;
No construction work should occur within 10 m of any of the graves;
Emissions into the atmosphere as a result of staff vehicles.
Medium (Negative)
Efficient movement of traffic through the entrance and exit in order to reduce congestion and vehicle emissions.
Ensure that the facility is operated in such a manner whereby potential odours are minimised.
Improved service delivery with regards poultry products
Medium (Positive)
Ensure that the proposed infrastructure is maintained appropriately to ensure that all facilities and infrastructure operate within its design capacity to deliver as the market requires.
Opportunities for employment and skills development
Medium
(Positive)
Enhance the use of local labour and local skills as far as reasonably possible.
Where the required skills do not occur locally, and where appropriate and applicable, ensure that relevant local individuals are trained.
Ensure that an equitable percentage allocation is provided for local labour employment as well as specify the use of small-to-medium enterprises and training specifications in the Contractors contract.
Ensure that goods and services are sourced from the local and regional economy as far as reasonably possible.
Night lighting of the development Medium No specific mitigation measures are recommended as it is assumed that
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 61
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
on the nightscape of the surrounding landscape
(Negative) night lighting of the proposed storage facility will be planned in such a manner so as to minimize light pollution such as glare and light spill (light trespass) by:
Using light fixtures that shield the light and focus illumination on the ground (or only where light is required).
Avoiding elevated lights within safety/security requirements.
Using minimum lamp wattage within safety/security requirements.
Where possible, using timer switches or motion detectors to control lighting in areas that are not occupied continuously (if permissible and in line with minimum security requirements).
Switching off lights when not in use in line with safety and security
Potential noise impact from operations and road transport of products
Medium (Negative)
It is recommended that the drivers of the vehicles be discouraged from using air brakes at night.
Limit the effects of noise associated disturbances from chickens and operational activities on sensitive fauna such as owls and medium-large mammals (especially carnivores), potentially occurring hedgehogs and large terrestrial birds such as Korhaans and Secretary birds.
Minor accidents to the public and moderate accidents to operational staff
Medium (Negative)
An Emergency Plan should be compiled in order to deal with potential spillages and fires. Records of practices should be kept on site.
Scheduled inspections should be implemented by operating personnel in order to assure and verify the integrity of hoses, piping and storage lagoon.
Portable fire extinguishers and fire water hydrants (i.e. appropriate fire-fighting equipment) should be provided at the facility as required.
Atmospheric pollution due to fumes, smoke from fires
Medium (Negative)
Portable fire extinguishers and fire water hydrants (i.e. appropriate fire-fighting equipment) should be provided at the terminal as required. Mobile fire-fighting equipment should be provided at the berths as a safety precaution during the vessel offloading process. It should be
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 62
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
noted that the products planned to be stored at the terminal have high flash points and low volatility. As a result, fires are unlikely, unsustainable, and can be extinguished with basic fire water and portable fire extinguishers.
Decommission
Direct Impacts Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
High (Negative)
Monitor and maintain the road impact control measures to ensure that they remain effective
Introduction and proliferation of alien species
High (Negative)
Remove Category species using mechanical methods, and minimize soil disturbance as far as possible.
Increased dust and erosion Medium (Negative)
Limit vehicles to the construction site
Commence (and preferably complete) decommissioning during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
Revegetate denude areas with locally indigenous flora a.s.a.p.
Implement erosion protection measures on site to reduce erosion and sedimentation of the local drainage system. Measures could include bunding around soil stockpiles, and vegetation of areas not to be developed.
Implement effective and environmentally-friendly dust control measures, such as mulching or periodic wetting of the entrance road.
Sensory disturbance of fauna Low (Negative)
Commence (and preferably complete) demolition / rehabilitation during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Minimize noise to limit its impact on sensitive fauna.
Limit demolition activities to day time hours
Minimize or eliminate security and other lighting, to reduce the disturbance of nocturnal fauna.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 63
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
Destruction of palaeontological material
Very Low (Negative)
If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Destruction of archaeological artefacts
Very Low (Negative)
If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Destruction of graves Low (Negative)
The two graveyards should be fenced off clearly and pointed out to all construction workers and other staff on site to ensure that impacts to them are avoided;
No construction work should occur within 10 m of any of the graves;
Discharge of contaminated stormwater into the surrounding environment
Medium (Negative)
The appointed Contractor should compile a Method Statement for Stormwater Management during the decommissioning phase.
Provide secure storage for oil, chemicals and other waste materials to prevent contamination of stormwater runoff.
Emissions from decommissioning vehicles and generation of dust
Medium (Negative)
Ensure that cleared (excavated) areas and unpaved surfaces are sprayed with water (obtained from an approved source) to minimise dust generation.
Approved soil stabilisers may be utilised to limit dust generation.
Ensure that decommissioning vehicles travelling on unpaved roads do not exceed a speed limit of 40 km/hour.
Noise generation from demolition activities
Medium (Negative)
A method statement, including detailed procedures, must be drawn up prior to any decommissioning of existing tanks.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 64
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
Decommissioning personnel must wear proper hearing protection, which should be specified as part of the Decommissioning Phase Risk Assessment carried out by the Contractor.
The Contractor must ensure that all decommissioning personnel are provided with adequate PPE, where appropriate.
Pollution of the surrounding environment as a result of the handling, temporary storage and disposal of solid waste
Medium
(Negative)
General waste (i.e. building rubble, demolition waste, discarded concrete, bricks, tiles, wood, glass, plastic, metal, excavated material, packaging material, paper and domestic waste etc.) and hazardous waste (i.e. empty tins, paint and paint cleaning liquids, oils, fuel spillages and chemicals etc.) generated during the decommissioning phase should be stored temporarily on site in suitable (and correctly labelled) waste collection bins and skips (or similar). Waste collection bins and skips should be covered with suitable material, where appropriate.
Should the on-site storage of general waste and hazardous waste exceed 100 m3 and 80 m3 respectively, then the National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste (published on 29 November 2013 under GN 926) must be adhered to
Ensure that general waste and hazardous waste generated are removed from the site on a regular basis and disposed of at an appropriate, licensed waste disposal facility by an approved waste management Contractor. Waste disposal slips or waybills should be kept on file for auditing purposes as proof of disposal.
Ensure that sufficient general waste disposal bins are provided for all personnel throughout the site. These bins must be emptied on a regular basis.
Appropriately time demolition / rehabilitation activities to minimise sensory disturbance to fauna.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 65
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
Indirect impacts:
Cumulative impacts:
Alternative 2
Direct impacts:
Indirect impacts:
Cumulative impacts:
Direct impacts:
Indirect impacts:
Cumulative impacts:
Alternative 3
Direct impacts:
Indirect impacts:
Cumulative impacts:
Direct impacts:
Indirect impacts:
Cumulative impacts:
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 66
Activity Impact summary Significance Proposed mitigation
No-go option
Direct impacts:
Indirect impacts:
Cumulative impacts:
Direct impacts:
None of the impacts mentioned above will occur.
If the proposed project does not proceed, increased income and economic spin-off activities will not be realised.
Approximately 11 new permanent jobs will not be created during the operational phase.
If the proposed project does not proceed, the industries that rely on the supply of poultry products could experience hindered economic growth potential.
Indirect impacts:
There are no indirect impacts during the construction phase for the No-go Option.
Cumulative impacts:
There are no cumulative impacts during the construction phase for the No-go Option
A complete impact assessment which include process undertaken to identify, assess and rank the impacts, the activity will impose on the site through the life of the activity in terms of EIA Regulation 2017, Appendix 1(i) and (j) of GN R.982 must be included as Appendix H.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 67
C.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Taking the assessment of potential impacts into account, please provide an environmental impact statement that summarises the impact that the proposed activity and its alternatives may have on the environment after the management and mitigation of impacts have been taken into account, with specific reference to types of impact, duration of impacts, likelihood of potential impacts actually occurring and the significance of impacts.
Alternative A (preferred alternative)
The proposed development area is mostly transformed as a result of past agricultural practices (Tilling). About 60% of the habitat has been transformed in the past, mainly by agriculture. There is also an ongoing habitat loss due to expanding rural settlements, overgrazing and alien plant invasion. The main environmental impacts associated with the proposed project include: Site clearance of previously transformed land and preparation of site for the chicken broiler, this may lead to loss of destruction of an already transformed habitat and habitat destruction. Of most concern however is the number of trees that could be lost. These trees provide roosting and nesting habitat for birds and small raptors. The probability is however, considered to be low with mitigation. Furthermore the proposed development site shall ensure minimal removal of trees from site. Earth-moving activities during the clearing of vegetation for the construction of the chicken broiler are likely to increase the susceptibility of the site to soil erosion as the result of increased bare ground and dust generation. The potential impact of continued and increased dust during construction with mitigation was rated of low significance. Graves are of heritage importance and could be easily destructed as a result of clearing of land and construction of the chicken broiler facility. The initial layout of the proposed development site was within the buffer of the graves as such posing a high risk of the destruction of graves, the probability of occurrence of this impact was very likely. However this layout was amended to ensure that the proposed development does not affect the graves and a 10 meter buffer is respected. The potential impact of with mitigation was rated of very low significance. Waste will be generated through-out the life cycle of the development. However with proper waste disposal measures, waste impacts will be of low probability post mitigation. Please see Appendix H for full impact assessment and their significance.
Alternative B
Alternative C
No-go alternative (compulsory)
The ‘No-Go’ option assumes that a conservative approach that would ensure that the environment is not disturbed. It is important to state that this assessment is informed by the current condition of the area. Should the Competent Authority decline the application, the ‘No-Go’ option will be followed and the status quo of the site will remain.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 68
SECTION D PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
D.1 ADVERTISEMENT AND NOTICE
Publication name Brits Pos
Date published 26 August 2016
Site notice position Latitude Longitude
27° 52' 58.14" E 25° 15' 56.29" S
Date placed 29 July 2016
Include proof of the placement of the relevant advertisements and notices in Appendix I1.
D.2 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MEASURES
Provide details of the measures taken to include all potential I&APs as required by Regulation 41(2)(e) and 41(6) of GN R.982. Key stakeholders (other than organs of state) identified in terms of Regulation 40(2)(d) of GN R.982:
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 69
Title, Name and Surname Affiliation/ key stakeholder status Contact details (tel number
or e-mail address)
Mr Ngema Community Chairman- Plot 260 Jonathan 0791407720
Jan Maseko Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 46 Jonathan 0782880854
Mathews Mlangeni Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 48 Jonathan 0760267342
David Maseko Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 41 Jonathan 0824139564
Boysee Masango Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 274 Jonathan 0844196644
Joshua Mlangeni Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 48 Jonathan 0767584083
Edwin Lelaka Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 61 Jonathan 0833154759
Senza Ngozo Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 35 Jonathan 0836096408
Alfred Ngobese Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 46 Jonathan 0822620897
Madoda Maseko Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 46 Jonathan 0715443686
Sbongseni Mlangeni Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 48 Jonathan 0820949861
Mndeni Ngozo Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 35 Jonathan 0728332455
Bongane Radebe Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 232 Jonathan 0835464370
Mr. Mosetlhe Ward Councillor 0715114952
Ntomfuthi Mlangeni Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 48 Jonathan 0725699400
Caiphus Ngozo Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 35 Jonathan 0762493829
Include proof that the key stakeholder received written notification of the proposed activities as Appendix I2. This proof may include any of the following:
e-mail delivery reports;
registered mail receipts;
courier waybills;
signed acknowledgements of receipt; and/or
or any other proof as agreed upon by the competent authority.
D.3 ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES
Summary of main issues raised by I&APs Summary of response from EAP
The issue of criminal activity and tree removal were raised as a concern in the running of the project.
The proposed development shall ensure minimal removal of trees from the site. Furthermore security officers shall be hired to address this concern.
D.4 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT
The practitioner must make report (s) available to I&APs record all comments received from I&APs and respond to each comment before is submitted. The comments and responses must be captured in a comments and response report as prescribed in the EIA Regulations and be attached to the Final BAR as Appendix I3.
D.5 AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION
Authorities and organs of state identified as key stakeholders. Key stakeholders identified in terms of Regulation 7(1) and (2) and Regulation 40(2) (a)-(c) of GN R.982:
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FA CILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 70
Authority/Organ of State
Contact person (Title,
Name and Surname)
Tel No Fax No e-mail Postal address
Moretele Local Municipality
Amogelang Sefara
0127161327 [email protected]
Private Bag X367, Makapanstad,
North West, 0404
Bojanala Platinum District Municipality
Goitsimosimo Tau
0145904500 0145926085 [email protected]
P O Box 1993, Rustenburg,0300
North West READ Rhuleni Mathebula
0183895122 [email protected]
Private Bag X2039 Mmabatho
2735
North West Provincial Heritage Resources Authority
Natasha Higgitt
0214624502 0214624509 [email protected]
11 Harrington Street, Cape Town,
8001
Include proof that the Authorities and Organs of State received written notification and draft reports of the proposed activities as Appendix I4.
D.6 CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
Note that, for any activities (linear or other) where deviation from the public participation requirements may be appropriate, the person conducting the public participation process may deviate from the requirements of that sub-regulation to the extent and in the manner as may be agreed to by the competent authority. Proof of any such agreement must be provided, where applicable. Application for any deviation from the regulations relating to the public participation process must be submitted prior to the commencement of the public participation process. A list of registered I&APs must be included as Appendix I5. Copies of any correspondence and minutes of any meetings held must be included in Appendix I6.
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 71
SECTION E RECOMMENDATION OF
PRACTITIONER
Is the information contained in this report and the documentation attached hereto sufficient to make a decision in respect of the activity applied for (in the view of the environmental assessment practitioner)?
YES
If “NO”, indicate the aspects that should be assessed further as part of a Scoping and EIA process before a decision can be made (list the aspects that require further assessment).
If “YES”, please list any recommended conditions, including mitigation measures that should be considered for inclusion in any authorisation that may be granted by the competent authority in respect of the application.
This Draft BA Report has investigated and assessed the significance of the predicted positive and negative impacts associated with the proposed development of a chicken broiler. No negative impacts have been identified within this BA that, in the opinion of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner who conducted this BA Process, should be considered “fatal flaws” from an environmental perspective, and thereby necessitate substantial re-design or termination of the project. The fact that development occurs on previously transformed land minimises the impacts on the proposed development site. Taking into consideration the findings of the BA Process, including the findings of the specialist studies, it is the opinion of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner, that the project benefits outweigh the costs and that the project will make a positive contribution to sustainable economic growth, skills development and employment opportunities in the Moretele Local Municipality. It is recommended that the project receive Environmental Authorisation in terms of the EIA Regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998, as amended) subjected to the following conditions:
The EMPr of the proposed development must be adhered to during all phases of the development
A Water use license must be obtained
All the recommendations of the specialists must be implemented for the proposed project In order to ensure the effective implementation of the mitigation and management actions, a Draft EMPr has been compiled and is included in Appendix F of this Draft BA Report. The mitigation measures necessary to ensure that the project is planned, constructed, operated and decommissioned in an environmentally responsible manner are listed in this Draft EMPr. The EMPr is a dynamic document that should be updated regularly and provides clear and implementable measures for proposed development of a chicken broiler.
The EMPr that meet the requirements of EIA Regulation,2017, Appendix 4, must be attached as Appendix J.
Is an EMPr attached? YES
The details of the EAP who compiled the BAR and the expertise of the EAP to perform the Basic Assessment process must be included as Appendix K
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 72
If any specialist reports were used during the compilation of this BAR, please attach the declaration of interest for each specialist in Appendix F any other information relevant to this application and not previously included must be attached in Appendix L.
E.1 SECTION F: AFFIRMATION BY EAP
I Reinett Mogotshi (name of person representing EAP) of Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (name of company) declare that the information provided is correct and relevant to the activity/ project and that, the information was made available to interested and affected parties for their comments. All specialist (s) reports are relevant for the competent authority to make informed decision.
SIGNATURE OF EAP DATE
SECTION F APPENDICES The following appendices must be attached:
Appendix A A3 Locality Map
Appendix B Layout Plan and Sensitivity Maps
Appendix C Photographs
Appendix D Facility illustration(s)
Appendix E Confirmation of services by Municipality (servitude and infrastructure planning)
Appendix F Details and expertise of Specialist and Declaration of Interest
Appendix G Specialist reports (including terms of reference)
Appendix H Impact Assessment
Appendix I Public Participation
Appendix J Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)
Appendix K Details of EAP and expertise
Appendix L Any other Information
Appendix M Financial Provision (if applicable)
Appendix N Closure Plan (where applicable) as described in Appendix 5 of EIA Regulations, 2017
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175 - JQ, BRITS, NORTH W ES T
Basic Assessment Report, EIA Regulations, 2017 - Page 73
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix A A3 Locality Map
Appendix B Layout Plan and Sensitivity Maps
Appendix C Photographs
Appendix D Facility illustration(s)
Appendix E Confirmation of services by Municipality (servitude and infrastructure planning)
Appendix F Details and expertise of Specialist and Declaration of Interest
Appendix G Specialist reports (including terms of reference)
Appendix H Impact Assessment
Appendix I Public Participation
Appendix J Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)
Appendix K Details of EAP and expertise
Appendix L Any other Information
Appendix M Financial Provision (if applicable)
Appendix N Closure Plan (where applicable) as described in Appendix 5 of EIA Regulations, 2014
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix A, Page 1
Appendix A.1: Locality Map ___________________________________________________________________ 2
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix A, Page 2
Appendix A.1: Locality Map
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix B, Page 1
Appendix B.1: Site layout of the proposed development site (as supplied by the Project Proponent _________ 2
Appendix B.2: Layout of the proposed development with sensitivities _________________________________ 3
Appendix B.3: 100 meter buffer of potential wetland areas _________________________________________ 4
Appendix B.4: The biodiversity map of the proposed development site ________________________________ 5
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix B, Page 2
Appendix B.1: Site layout of the proposed development site (as supplied by the Project Proponent
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix B, Page 3
Appendix B.2: Layout of the proposed development with sensitivities
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix B, Page 4
Appendix B.3: 100 meter buffer of potential wetland areas
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix B, Page 5
Appendix B.4: The biodiversity map of the proposed development site
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix C, Page 1
Jamrock Site photographs taken in the eight major compass directions ________________________________ 2
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix C, Page 2
Jamrock Site photographs taken in the eight major compass directions
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix D, Page 1
Facility illustration of each broiler house for the proposed development _______________________________ 2
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix D, Page 2
Facility illustration of each broiler house for the proposed development
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix E, Page 1
Not available for inclusion at this stage.
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix F, Page 1
WE BELONG WE CARE WE SERVE
DETAILS AND EXPERTISE OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST
(For official use only)
File Reference Number:
NEAS Reference Number:
Date Received:
Application for authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014
PROJECT TITLE
Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Brits, North West.
1. Details of Specialist
Specialist: ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd
Contact person: Dr Jayson Orton Postal address: 40 Brassie Street, Lakeside
Postal code: 7945 Cell: 083 272 3225 Telephone: 021 788 8425 Fax: n/a E-mail: [email protected] Professional affiliation(s) (if any)
ASAPA CRM Section member No.: 233 APHP accredited professional heritage practitioner
Project Consultant: CSIR
Contact person: Reinett Mogotshi
Postal address: P O Box 320 Stellenbosch
Postal code: 7599 Cell: Telephone: 021 888 2432 Fax: E-mail: [email protected]
AgriCentre Building Cnr. Dr. James Moroka and Stadium Rd Private Bag X2039, Mmabatho 2735
Tel: +27 (18) 389 5156 Fax: +27(18) 389 5006 E-mail: [email protected] Enq: EIA Admin Officer
CHIEF DIRECTORATE: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIRECTORATE: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
Details and Expertise of Specialist and Department of Rural, Environment Page 2 Declaration of Interest and Agricultural Development EIA Regulations, 2014
2. Expertise of the Specialist including Curriculum vitae (Appendix 6 (1)(a)(ii) of EIA Regulations, 2014)
Curriculum Vitae
Jayson David John Orton ARCHAEOLOGIST AND HERITAGE CONSULTANT
Contact Details and personal information:
Address: 40 Brassie Street, Lakeside, 7945 Telephone: (021) 788 8425 Cell Phone: 083 272 3225 Email: [email protected] Birth date and place: 22 June 1976, Cape Town, South Africa Citizenship: South African ID no: 760622 522 4085 Driver’s License: Code 08 Marital Status: Married to Carol Orton Languages spoken: English and Afrikaans
Education:
SA College High School Matric 1994 University of Cape Town B.A. (Archaeology, Environmental & Geographical Science) 1997 University of Cape Town B.A. (Honours) (Archaeology)* 1998 University of Cape Town M.A. (Archaeology) 2004 University of Oxford D.Phil. (Archaeology) 2013
*Frank Schweitzer memorial book prize for an outstanding student and the degree in the First Class.
Employment History:
Spatial Archaeology Research Unit, UCT Research assistant Jan 1996 – Dec 1998 Department of Archaeology, UCT Field archaeologist Jan 1998 – Dec 1998 UCT Archaeology Contracts Office Field archaeologist Jan 1999 – May 2004 UCT Archaeology Contracts Office Heritage & archaeological consultant Jun 2004 – May 2012 School of Archaeology, University of Oxford Undergraduate Tutor Oct 2008 – Dec 2008
ACO Associates cc Associate, Heritage & archaeological consultant
Jan 2011 – Dec 2013
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd Director, Heritage & archaeological consultant
Jan 2014 –
Details and Expertise of Specialist and Department of Rural, Environment Page 3 Declaration of Interest and Agricultural Development EIA Regulations, 2014
Professional Accreditation:
Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) membership number: 233 CRM Section member with the following accreditation: Principal Investigator: Coastal shell middens (awarded 2007) Stone Age archaeology (awarded 2007) Grave relocation (awarded 2014) Field Director: Rock art (awarded 2007)
Colonial period archaeology (awarded 2007)
Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP) Accredited Professional Heritage Practitioner Memberships and affiliations:
South African Archaeological Society Council member 2004 – 2016 Assoc. Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) member 2006 – UCT Department of Archaeology Research Associate 2013 – Heritage Western Cape APM Committee member 2013 – UNISA Department of Archaeology and Anthropology Research Fellow 2014 – Fish Hoek Valley Historical Association 2014 – Kalk Bay Historical Association 2016 – Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners member 2016 –
Fieldwork and project experience:
Extensive fieldwork and experience as both Field Director and Principle Investigator throughout the Western and Northern Cape, and also in the western parts of the Free State and Eastern Cape as follows:
Feasibility studies: Heritage feasibility studies examining all aspects of heritage from the desktop
Phase 1 surveys and impact assessments: Project types
o Notification of Intent to Develop applications (for Heritage Western Cape) o Desktop-based Letter of Exemption (for the South African Heritage Resources Agency) o Heritage Impact Assessments (largely in the Environmental Impact Assessment or Basic
Assessment context under NEMA and Section 38(8) of the NHRA, but also self-standing assessments under Section 38(1) of the NHRA)
o Archaeological specialist studies o Phase 1 archaeological test excavations in historical and prehistoric sites o Archaeological research projects
Development types o Mining and borrow pits o Roads (new and upgrades) o Residential, commercial and industrial development o Dams and pipe lines o Power lines and substations o Renewable energy facilities (wind energy, solar energy and hydro-electric facilities)
Details and Expertise of Specialist and Department of Rural, Environment Page 4 Declaration of Interest and Agricultural Development EIA Regulations, 2014
Phase 2 mitigation and research excavations: ESA open sites
o Duinefontein, Gouda, Namaqualand MSA rock shelters
o Fish Hoek, Yzerfontein, Cederberg, Namaqualand MSA open sites
o Swartland, Bushmanland, Namaqualand LSA rock shelters
o Cederberg, Namaqualand, Bushmanland LSA open sites (inland)
o Swartland, Franschhoek, Namaqualand, Bushmanland LSA coastal shell middens
o Melkbosstrand, Yzerfontein, Saldanha Bay, Paternoster, Dwarskersbos, Infanta, Knysna, Namaqualand
LSA burials o Melkbosstrand, Saldanha Bay, Namaqualand, Knysna
Historical sites
o Franschhoek (farmstead and well), Waterfront (fort, dump and well), Noordhoek (cottage), variety of small excavations in central Cape Town and surrounding suburbs
Historic burial grounds o Green Point (Prestwich Street), V&A Waterfront (Marina Residential), Paarl
Awards:
Western Cape Government Cultural Affairs Awards 2015/2016: Best Heritage Project.
3. Declaration by Specialist
l, Jayson Orton ( Name of Spialist), of ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd {name of company) declare that;
o I act as an independent specialist in this application.o I will perform the wcrk relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and
findings that are not favourable to the applicant.
. there are no circumstances hat may compromise my objectivity in performing such work,o I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act,
Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;
o I will comply with fie Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation;o I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;
e I undertake to disclose to the applicant/ Environmental Assessment Practitioner appointed by applicant andthe competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have thepotential of influencing any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent
authority; and the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to thecompetent authority;
. all the particulars fumished by me in this form are true and correct; and
I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of 48 and is punishable interms of Section 498(2) of the Act.
As r+g INGName of mmpany (if apflkzble)
t 8 Aeetu Lotl
Date
Seewr+"trDesignation
Officialstamp:
Details and Expertise ofSpeciolist ondDeclarqti on of I nterestEIA Regulations,2AT4
Department of Rural, Env,ironmenta nd Ag ric ultural D ev elo p ment
I I APR 20t7
sl{EAFn xnr.tr s[ Polts I E Dl E N S
Page 5
Signature of the
WE BELONG WE CARE WE SERVE
DETAILS AND EXPERTISE OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST
(For official use only)
File Reference Number:
NEAS Reference Number:
Date Received:
Application for authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014
PROJECT TITLE
Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Brits, North West.
1. Details of Specialist
Specialist: Ecologist
Contact person: Susan Abell Postal address: 64A Coleraine Drive River Club Ext 7, Sandton 2191
Postal code: 2191 Cell: Telephone: 0117877400 Fax: 0117847599 E-mail: [email protected] Professional affiliation(s) (if any)
SACNASP
Project Consultant: CSIR
Contact person: Reinett Mogotshi
Postal address: P O Box 320 Stellenbosch
Postal code: 7599 Cell: Telephone: 021 888 2432 Fax: E-mail: [email protected]
2. Expertise of the Specialist including Curriculum vitae (Appendix 6 (1)(a)(ii) of EIA Regulations, 2014)
AgriCentre Building Cnr. Dr. James Moroka and Stadium Rd Private Bag X2039, Mmabatho 2735
Tel: +27 (18) 389 5156 Fax: +27(18) 389 5006 E-mail: [email protected] Enq: EIA Admin Officer
CHIEF DIRECTORATE: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIRECTORATE: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
Details and Expertise of Specialist and Department of Rural, Environment Page 2 Declaration of Interest and Agricultural Development EIA Regulations, 2014
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
MSc Resource Conservation Biology (Ecology) (2000 – 2001) B Sc Hons (Botanical) University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (1999) B Sc University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (1998)
KEY QUALIFICATIONS
Environmental Impact Assessment:
Compiled numerous Environmental Impact Assessments, Scoping Reports and Environmental Management Programmes as required by the Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) and the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998).
Specialist Assessments:
Over 15 years performing ecological and vegetation surveys within Southern Africa. Expertises are strong in the Savanna, Grasslands and Shrubveld within Gauteng, North West, Limpopo, Northern Cape, Mpumalanga, KwaZulu Natal, Lesotho and Botswana. Further experience lies within the Karoid Shrub, Kalahari and Fynbos Areas. Assistance with CREW (Custodians of Rare and Endangered Wildflowers) expeditions GIS Mapping, Database management, GIS Modelling undertaken within specialist projects
Strategic / Spatial Planning:
Co-ordinated and managed strategic spatial planning projects in Gauteng, North West Province and Mpumalanga including the:
State of Environment Reports
Gauteng Agricultural Potential Atlas (GAPA)
North West Biodiversity Site Inventory and Database Development Atlas
Tshwane Macro Open Space Policy
Blyde River Strategic Management Plan
Biodiversity Database for Optimum Collieries (BHP Billiton)
Conference Presentations:
Undertaken numerous presentations at conferences (SAAB; IAIA)
Educational Training:
Education training for organisations such as Wits University and Induction Training in Biodiversity Conservation for Mining Operations
Details and Expertise of Specialist and Department of Rural, Environment Page 3 Declaration of Interest and Agricultural Development EIA Regulations, 2014
Skills Vegetation identification, description, analysis and mapping using Twinspan and
Juice
Advanced microscopy (Transmission and scanning electron microscopy)
Statistics (e.g. ANOVA chi-squared tests)
Presenting and communication / networking skills
Additional Courses Completed: 2013: First aid Level 1 and 2 (Wilcare Safety Solutions)
2013: Off Road Driving (Proactive Driving for Sasol Botswana)
2010: Wild Flowers Course with Elsa Pooley
2010: Carbon Analyst Certification
2010: EIA Regulations Course
2007: LBJ Bird Course with Geoff Lockwood.
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE
Member & Senior Ecologist: Natural Scientific Services. Johannesburg (November 2004-Present)
Project Manager: Strategic Environmental Focus (SEF) (November 2003-
October 2004)
Environmental Manager: SEF, Pretoria (April 2001- November 2003)
University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) 1999 – 2001
Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on
Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Brits, North West.
APPENDIX G: SPECIALIST REPORTS
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC i
BROILER CHICKEN FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF
FARM JONATHAN 175, NORTH WEST PROVINCE
ECOSCAN REPORT
Compiled For:
CSIR Stellenbosch (CAS, EMS) 11 Jan Cilliers Street Stellenbosch, 7600
Western Cape, South Africa Tel: (021) 888 2432 Fax: (021) 888 2473
Compiled By:
Natural Scientific Services CC
64 Coleraine Dr River Club Ext 7 Sandton 2191
Tel: (011) 787-7400 Fax: (011) 784-7599
COPYRIGHT WARNING With very few exceptions the copyright of all text and presented information is the exclusive property of Natural Scientific Services. It is a criminal offence to reproduce and/or use, without written consent, any information, technical procedure and/or technique contained in this document. Criminal and civil proceedings will be taken as a matter of strict routine against any person and/or institution infringing the copyright of Natural Scientific Services.
Ref No: 2293
Date: February 2017
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Natural Scientific Services CC was appointed by the Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research to perform a terrestrial ecoscan assessment (a brief floral and faunal assessment) for
a proposed broiler chicken facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175 in North West
Province.
Desktop research and findings from our site visit in November 2016 indicated that essentially the
entire proposed development site comprises regenerating previously cultivated land. A nearby
wetland, which is situated on the main access road to the site, is regarded as the most
conservation important (CI) local biodiversity feature. Some large indigenous trees on site were
also found to provide important roosting and nesting habitat for owls and potentially small
raptors.
Summarized in the Table below are potential impacts of the proposed development on
biodiversity, without and with mitigation. Without mitigation, the most significant potential
impacts include:
Degradation of the wetland on the main access road from increased dust, erosion and
sedimentation caused by increased traffic.
Introduction of alien flora with the influx of vehicles, people and materials during
construction and operation, and their proliferation in the absence of effective control.
Poor or inappropriate control of invertebrate and vertebrate pest species due to
substandard animal husbandry / hygiene and waste management.
Table Summary of impact significance, without and with mitigation
POTENTIAL IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE
CONSTRUCTION Without mitigation With mitigation
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road High Low
Loss of terrestrial vegetation and faunal habitat Medium Low
Loss of CI or medicinal flora Medium Low
Loss of CI fauna Medium Low
Introduction and proliferation of alien species High Low
Increased dust and erosion Medium Low
Sensory disturbance of fauna Medium Low
OPERATION
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road High Low
Environmental contamination Medium Low
Poor / Inappropriate control of animal pests High Low
Disease transmission Medium Low
Altered burning Medium Low
Introduction and proliferation of alien species High Low
Loss of CI or medicinal flora Medium Low
Sensory disturbance of fauna Medium Low
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC iii
POTENTIAL IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE
DECOMMISSIONING
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road High Low
Introduction and proliferation of alien species High Low
Increased dust and erosion Medium Low
Sensory disturbance of fauna Low Low
DECLARATION
I, Susan Abell, in my capacity as a specialist consultant, hereby declare that I -
Act as an independent consultant;
Do not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than
remuneration for the work performed in terms of the National Environmental
Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998);
Have and will not have vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;
Have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;
Undertake to disclose, to the competent authority, any material information that has or
may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the
objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the National
Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998);
Will provide the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal
regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not;
As a registered member of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions,
will undertake my profession in accordance with the Code of Conduct of the Council, as
well as any other societies to which I am a member;
Based on information provided to me by the project proponent and in addition to
information obtained during the course of this study, have presented the results and
conclusion within the associated document to the best of my professional ability; and
Reserve the right to modify aspects pertaining to the present investigation should
additional information become available through ongoing research and/or further work
in this field.
Susan Abell Pr.Nat.Sci. 10 February 2017
SACNASP Reg. No. 400116/05
(Ecological & Environmental Science)
Date
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
ACRONYM DESCRIPTION
ADU Animal Demography Unit – a research unit of the Department of Zoology at the
University of Cape Town
AGIS Agricultural Geo-referenced Information System
CBA Critical Biodiversity Area
CI Conservation Important
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora
C-Plan Conservation Plan
CR Critically Endangered
CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
D Declining population trend
DACE Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment
DD Data Deficient
DEA Department of Environmental Affairs
DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
DREAD Department of Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development
DWA Department of Water Affairs (previously known as DWAF)
DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
DWS Department of Water and Sanitation (previously known as DWAF and DWA)
EN Endangered
End Endemic
ES Ecological Sensitivity
EWT Endangered Wildlife Trust
FEPA Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area
GG Government Gazette
GIS Geographic Information System
GN Government Notice
IA Impact Assessment
IBA Important Bird Area
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, based in
Gland, Switzerland
LC Least Concern
LoO Likelihood of Occurrence of a taxon in an area
NBI National Botanical Institute
NEM:BA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004)
NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa‟s Development
NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project
NSS Natural Scientific Services CC
NT Near Threatened
NWA National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998)
PG Protected Game
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC v
ACRONYM DESCRIPTION
Pr.Nat.Sci. Professional Natural Scientist
PS Protected Species
PWA Protected Wild Animal
QDS Quarter Degree Square – the basic unit used by the Surveyor General for creation
of 1:50 000 topographical maps
S Stable population trend
SABAP 1 & 2 First and second Southern African Bird Atlas Projects, managed by the ADU
SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute
SACNASP South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions
ToPS Threatened or Protected Species
U Unknown population trend
UJ University of Johannesburg
UP University of Pretoria
VU Vulnerable
WA Wild Animal
WITS University of the Witwatersrand
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 9
2. Terms of Reference ................................................................................................................. 9
3. Project Team .......................................................................................................................... 10
4. Applicable Legislation, Policies & Guidelines ..................................................................... 10
4.1. International Agreements ................................................................................................ 10
4.2. Regional Agreements ...................................................................................................... 11
4.3. National Legislation ......................................................................................................... 11
4.4. National Policies, Guidelines & Programmes .................................................................. 11
4.5. Provincial Legislation, Policies & Guidelines ................................................................... 12
5. Project Description ................................................................................................................ 12
6. Study Region .......................................................................................................................... 12
6.1. Locality & Land-use ......................................................................................................... 12
6.2. Climate ............................................................................................................................ 14
6.3. Hydrology ........................................................................................................................ 14
6.4. Land Types ..................................................................................................................... 15
6.5. Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 15
7. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 19
7.1. Vegetation & Floral Communities .................................................................................... 19
7.2. Fauna .............................................................................................................................. 21
7.3. Impact Assessment ......................................................................................................... 23
8. Survey Results ....................................................................................................................... 25
8.1. Vegetation and Floral Communities ................................................................................ 25
8.2. Fauna .............................................................................................................................. 33
9. Areas of Significance ............................................................................................................. 44
9.1. International Areas of Conservation Significance ............................................................ 44
9.2. National and Regional Areas of Conservation Significance ............................................. 44
9.3. Local Areas of Conservation Significance ....................................................................... 51
10. Impacts & Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 54
10.1. Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 54
10.2. Management and Mitigation Recommendations .............................................................. 56
11. Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................. 57
12. References ............................................................................................................................. 65
13. Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 68
13.1. POSA list for QDS 2527BD ............................................................................................. 68
13.2. Mammal list for the study area ........................................................................................ 71
13.3. Bird list for the study area ................................................................................................ 75
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC vii
13.4. Reptile list for the study area ........................................................................................... 88
13.5. Frog list for the study area ............................................................................................... 91
13.6. Butterfly list for the study area ......................................................................................... 92
13.7. Odonata list for the study area ........................................................................................ 99
13.8. Scorpion list for the study area ...................................................................................... 101
13.9. Main CVs ...................................................................................................................... 101
13.10. NEMBA Requirements ....................................................................................... 107
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 NSS project team ..................................................................................... 10
Table 6-1 Dominant flora comprising the Springbokvlakte Thornveld vegetation type
15
Table 7-1 Rating of impact spatial extent ................................................................. 24
Table 7-2 Rating of impact duration ......................................................................... 24
Table 7-3 Rating of potential impact intensity .......................................................... 24
Table 7-4 Rating of impact probability ...................................................................... 25
Table 7-5 Rating of overall impact significance ........................................................ 25
Table 8-1 Top 12 dominant families and most dominant growth forms obtained from
the POSA website for the QDS 2527BD and on site ................................ 26
Table 8-2 Broad Habitat/Vegetation communities .................................................... 26
Table 8-3 Numbers of conservation important plant species per Red Data category
within South Africa and North West (date accessed: December 2016) .... 30
Table 8-4 Potential CI species based on information obtained from 2527BB &
2527BD QDG........................................................................................... 31
Table 8-5 Alien and Invasive Species detected during the survey ........................... 32
Table 8-6 Potentially occurring conservation important mammal species ................ 35
Table 8-7 Potentially occurring conservation important bird species ........................ 35
Table 8-8 Potentially occurring conservation important reptile species .................... 40
Table 8-9 Potentially occurring conservation important frog species ........................ 40
Table 9-1 Scoring Range for the Areas of Significance ............................................ 51
Table 10-1 Summary of impact significance, without and with mitigation ................... 56
Table 11-1 Impact Assessment ................................................................................. 58
Table 11-2 Mitigation measures ................................................................................. 61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 6-1 Photographs of the site ............................................................................ 12
Figure 6-2 Site location ............................................................................................. 13
Figure 6-3 Measurements of monthly rainfall at Rustenberg (AccuWeather 2016) .... 14
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC viii
Figure 6-4 Ecoregion and quaternary catchment wherein the development site is
situated .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 6-5 Regional vegetation and land type wherein the development site is situated
................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 7-1 Main vegetation sampling points .............................................................. 20
Figure 7-2 IUCN Red List categories ........................................................................ 23
Figure 8-1 Photographs of the different habitats within and surrounding the site....... 27
Figure 8-2 Examples of species found on site ........................................................... 28
Figure 8-3 Photographs of the wetland to the north of the site .................................. 30
Figure 8-4 Vegetation communities within the study area ......................................... 29
Figure 8-5 Photographs and Distribution of the Vulnerable Cullen holubii (Data from
Kew Gardens, UK) ................................................................................... 31
Figure 8-6 Photographs of Conservation Important plant species on Site ................. 32
Figure 8-7 The Category 1 Listed Opuntia species ................................................... 33
Figure 8-8 Evidence of mammal species on site ....................................................... 34
Figure 8-9 Evidence of bird species on site ............................................................... 36
Figure 8-10 Evidence of reptile species on site ........................................................... 39
Figure 8-11 Photographs of the nearby wetland where various frog species may breed .
................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 8-12 Evidence of butterfly species on site ........................................................ 42
Figure 8-13 Evidence of odonata species on site ........................................................ 43
Figure 8-14 Photographs of scorpion burrows on site ................................................. 43
Figure 9-1 Location of the site in relation to Important Bird Areas, and Protected Areas
................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 9-2 Location of the site relative to regional terrestrial Priority Areas and
Threatened Ecosystems .......................................................................... 48
Figure 9-3 Location of the site in relation to regional Freshwater Ecosystem Priority
Areas 49
Figure 9-4 Location of the site in relation to North West CBAs and ESAs ................. 50
Figure 9-5 Areas of biodiversity conservation significance ........................................ 53
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 9
Biodiversity is defined as "…the
variability among living organisms
from all sources including…terrestrial,
marine and other aquatic ecosystems
and the ecological complexes of which
they are a part; this includes diversity
within species, between species and of
ecosystems" (The Convention of
Biological Diversity, 1992). In other words,
plants, animals and micro-organisms,
their genes, and the ecosystems that
living organisms inhabit, are all facets of
biodiversity.
1. Introduction
South African legislation affirms the national commitment to conservation. The National
Environmental Management Act (NEMA; Act 107 of 1998) provides for “the integration of
social, economic and environmental factors into planning, implementation and decision-
making so as to ensure that development serves present and future generations." The
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA; Act 10 of 2004) affords
inter alia: the management and conservation of South Africa‟s biodiversity within the
framework of NEMA; the protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national
protection; and the sustainable use of indigenous biological resources. The National Water
Act (NWA; Act 36 of 1998) is the principle legal instrument relating to water resource
management in South Africa. All wetlands are protected under the NWA, wherein numerous
measures are stipulated “which are together intended to ensure the comprehensive
protection of all water resources.”
The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research‟s
(CSIR‟s) “Special Needs Skills and Development
Programme” is currently undertaking the necessary
environmental authorisations under NEMA, NEM:BA
and the NWA for a broiler chicken facility in the north-
eastern corner of North West Province. To this end
the CSIR appointed Natural Scientific Services CC
(NSS) to perform an ecological scan (a brief
terrestrial floral and faunal assessment - excluding
wetland assessment work) for the proposed project.
2. Terms of Reference
The ecoscan was performed according to the methodology agreed between the CSIR and
NSS, and this report includes:
A broad description of (relevant) biophysical attributes of the study area;
A list of applicable legislation, guidelines, standards and criteria to be considered in
project planning;
A broad determination of the (national and provincial) conservation importance of local
biodiversity;
A description of in situ vegetation and floral communities, including their structure,
dominant plant species composition and condition;
Discussion about observed and potentially occurring conservation important (e.g.
Protected, Red List and medicinal) species;
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 10
An assessment of potential impacts of the proposed project on biodiversity, and
recommended measures to mitigate these.
3. Project Team
All aspects of the ecoscan were performed by NSS (Table 3-1). The NSS team has
extensive experience in completing biodiversity assessments involving floral, faunal, wetland
and aquatic work, as well as Environmental Impact Assessments, Environmental
Management Programme Reports, Strategic Management Plans and Environmental
Management Plans for the conservation, mining, waste, commercial and industrial sectors.
In terms of accreditation and professional registrations the following is applicable to NSS:
Senior team members are registered Professional Natural Scientists in the ecological,
environmental, and zoological fields.
The senior wetland team member is acknowledged by the Department of Water and
Sanitation (DWS) as a competent wetland delineator.
Table 3-1 NSS project team
ROLE NAME QUALIFICATIONS
Flora Susan Abell M.Sc. Resource Conservation Biology (WITS).
Pr.Sci.Nat. registered (400116/05) – Ecology & Environmental
Science
Fauna Dr Caroline Lötter Ph.D. – Zoology (UP).
Pr.Sci.Nat. registered (400182/09) – Zoology.
GIS Mapping Tim Blignaut B.Sc. Honours - Geography (UJ).
4. Applicable Legislation, Policies & Guidelines
Legislation, policies and guidelines, which could apply to impacts of the proposed project on
biodiversity, are listed below. Although the list is comprehensive, additional legislation,
policies and guidelines that have not been mentioned may apply.
4.1. International Agreements
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES).
(Bonn) Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.
Convention on Biological Diversity including eco-systems and genetic resources.
Agenda 21 regarding the sustainable development at global and national levels.
Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation for sustainable development.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 11
4.2. Regional Agreements
Action Plan of the Environmental Initiative of NEPAD for sustainable development in
Africa.
4.3. National Legislation
Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act 43 of 1983).
Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989).
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996).
Water Services Act (Act 108 of 1997).
National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998).
National Forests Act (Act 84 of 1998) and Protected Tree Species.
National Veld and Forest Fire Act (Act 101 of 1998).
National Environmental Management Act (NEMA; Act 107 of 1998).
National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999).
National Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (Act 28 of 2002).
Draft Sustainable Utilization of Agricultural Resources Bill (2003).
National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003).
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA; Act 10 of 2004):
ooo National list of Ecosystems Threatened and in need of Protection (Government
Gazette [GG] 34809, Government Notice [GN] 1002, 9 December 2011).
ooo Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (GG 37885, 1 August 2014).
ooo Threatened or Protected Species Regulations (GG 587, GN 38600, 31 March
2015).
National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004).
National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008).
4.4. National Policies, Guidelines & Programmes
National Aquatic Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program including the River Health
Programme (initiated by the DWAF, now the DWA), which has recently been replaced
with the River Eco-status Monitoring Programme.
South African Water Quality Guidelines (DWAF 1996).
White Paper on Environmental Management Policy for South Africa (1998).
National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (Driver et al. 2004) including Priority Areas
and Threatened Ecosystems.
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (DEAT 2005).
National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project (Driver et al. 2011).
Mining and Biodiversity Guideline (DEA et al. 2013).
National Water Resource Strategy (DWAF 2013).
Draft national guidelines on biodiversity offsets (DEA 2012 and 2015).
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 12
4.5. Provincial Legislation, Policies & Guidelines
North West Biodiversity Conservation Act (Act 4 of 2016).
Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (1983).
North West State of the Environment Report (Walmsley & Walmsley 2002).
North West Environmental Outlook Report (DACE 2008).
North West Conservation Plan (C-Plan; DREAD 2012).
5. Project Description
The enterprise Jam Rock (Pty) Ltd proposes to develop three chicken broiler houses on site,
with associated infrastructure including a road, storage unit and farm house. The size of
each chicken house will be 20m x 130m, with the capacity to breed 40 000 chickens per
cycle. The farm has an existing borehole with the capacity to store 10 000 L of water (refer to
Areas of Concern map for brief overview of the layout - Figure 9-6).
6. Study Region
6.1. Locality & Land-use
The approximately 9.5ha development site is situated on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan in
North West Province (Figure 6-2). The site is approximately 3km west of the
Makgabetlwane and 3km south-east of the Dikgopaneng settlement areas / towns. Available
satellite imagery indicates, and our field observations (Figure 6-1) confirmed that essentially
the entire proposed development site comprises previously cultivated land. Surrounding
forms of land use include scattered human settlements and subsistence farming (CSIR
2016).
Figure 6-1 Photographs of the site
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 13
Figure 6-2 Site location
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 14
6.2. Climate
The regional climate features summer rainfall with very dry winters. Mean annual
precipitation is about 500–650mm. Frost is fairly infrequent in winter. Mean monthly
maximum and minimum temperatures for Warmbaths – Towoomba are 35.2°C and – 2.0°C
for October and July, respectively. Corresponding values are 36.8°C and – 1.2°C for Marble
Hall for January and June, respectively (Mucina & Rutherford 2006).
Shown in Figure 6-3 is monthly rainfall and atmospheric temperatures measured at
Rustenberg between January 2015 and November 2016 (data obtained from AccuWeather
2016). This approximate rainfall data indicate that during the 12-month period preceding our
site visit on 24 November 2016, the region had received a below-average annual amount of
~272mm rain. The approximate temperature data in Figure 6-3 indicate that temperatures
were typically hot during November 2016. However, when the site visit was undertaken it
was evident from the large number of vleis, pans and depressions that the region had
recently received substantial rain. On site, conditions were damp, warm and overcast, with
little to no wind and, therefore, highly favourable for the floral and faunal survey work.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jan
uar
y
Feb
ruar
y
Mar
ch
Ap
ril
May
Jun
e
July
Au
gust
Sep
tem
be
r
Oct
ob
er
No
vem
be
r
De
cem
be
r
Jan
uar
y
Feb
ruar
y
Mar
ch
Ap
ril
May
Jun
e
July
Au
gust
Sep
tem
be
r
Oct
ob
er
No
vem
be
r
2015 2016
Atm
osp
her
ic t
emp
erat
ure
(°C)
Ra
infa
ll (
mm
)
Year and month
Figure 6-3 Measurements of monthly rainfall at Rustenberg (AccuWeather 2016)
6.3. Hydrology
The proposed development site is situated in ecoregion 8.05 and quaternary catchment
A23J, close to its boundary with adjoining quaternary catchment A23K (Figure 6-4). The
former quaternary catchment has been rated with Moderate Ecological Sensitivity (ES), and
the latter with Low/Marginal ES (DWAF 2011). Although quaternary catchment A23J is
drained by the Kutswane River, the site is situated a similar distance (roughly 9km) from
both the Kutswane River and the Tolwane River, which drains quaternary catchment A23K.
Both these rivers represent tributaries of the Pienaars River, which drains into the Crocodile
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 15
River. These (and a moderate diversity of other rivers) collectively comprise the Crocodile
(West) and Marico Water Management Area. With approximately half the length of the rivers
containing Critically Endangered ecosystems, this WMA is particularly hard pressed to meet
South Africa‟s goal for freshwater ecosystem conservation without a focused effort to
rehabilitate some systems. Conservation action in the WMA should be focussed on
maintaining the last remaining good condition rivers, and strategically rehabilitating some of
the moderately-modified rivers (Nel & Driver 2012).The Crocodile River eventually feeds into
the Limpopo River, which flows through the Kruger National Park before entering
Mozambique.
6.4. Land Types
“Land types,” which have been identified by the ARC‟s Institute for Soil, Climate and Water,
represent areas that are uniform with respect to climate, terrain form, geology and soil. The
data, obtained through the Agricultural Geo-referenced Information System (AGIS 2010),
provide useful baseline information on land capability (especially agricultural potential).
According to this data, the proposed development site is situated in land type Ae20, close to
it‟s boundary with land type Ea71 (Figure 6-5).
The terrain within land type Ae20 is flat to slightly undulating, and across the proposed
development site elevation ranges between 1 051m and 1 054m a.s.l. Rocks within the land
type pertain to the volcano – sedimentary Karoo Supergroup. Most abundant in the area are
the mafic volcanics (tholeitic and olivine basalts and nephelinites) of the Letaba Formation,
then the mudstones of the Irrigasie Formation are the shale, with sandstone units, of the
Ecca Group. Soils are red – yellow apedal, freely drained with high base status and self –
mulching, black, vertic clays. The vertic soils, with a fluctuating water table, experience
prolonged periods of swelling and shrinking during wet and dry periods, considerable soil
cracking when dry, a loose soil surface, high calcium carbonate content and gilgai micro –
relief.
6.5. Vegetation
The proposed development site is situated in the Savanna Biome, within the SVcb 15
Springbokvlakte Thornveld regional vegetation type (Figure 6-5) as defined by Mucina &
Rutherford (2006). The Springbokvlakte Thornveld vegetation type represents open to
dense, low thorn savanna dominated by Acacia species or shrubby grassland with a very
low shrub layer. Dominant floral species within the Springbokvlakte Thornveld vegetation
type are listed in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 Dominant flora comprising the Springbokvlakte Thornveld vegetation type
GROWTH FORM DOMINANT SPECIES
Small Trees: Acacia karroo (d), Acacia luederitzii var. retinens (d), Acacia mellifera subsp.
detinens (d), Acacia nilotica (d), Ziziphus mucronata (d), Acacia tortilis subsp.
heteracantha, Boscia foetida subsp. rehmanniana.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 16
GROWTH FORM DOMINANT SPECIES
Tall Shrubs: Euclea undulata (d), Searsia engleri (d), Dichrostachys cinerea, Diospyros
lycioides subsp. lycioides, Grewia flava, Tarchonanthus camphoratus.
Low Shrubs: Acacia tenuispina (d), Ptycholobium plicatum.
Succulent Shrub: Kleinia longiflora.
Herbaceous
Climbers:
Momordica balsamina, Rhynchosia minima.
Graminoids: Aristida bipartita (d), Dichanthium annulatum var. papillosum (d), Ischaemum
afrum (d), Setaria incrassata (d), Aristida canescens, Brachiaria eruciformis.
Herbs: Aspilia mossambicensis, Indigastrum parviflorum, Nidorella hottentotica,
Orthosiphon suffrutescens, Senecio apiifolius
*The genus Acacia has been split internationally into Vachellia and Senegalia. For this report, these species will
remain in the Acacia genus.
* d = Dominant
According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), the Springbokvlakte Thornveld vegetation type is
Endangered. The national target is to conserve 19% of this vegetation type, but only 1% is
statutorily conserved, mainly in the Mkombo Nature Reserve. Roughly three times this area
is conserved in a number of other reserves. At least 49% of the vegetation type is
transformed, including about 45% cultivated and 3% urban and built-up. There are dense
rural populations in the southern and eastern sides of the vegetation type. Alien plants are
scattered over wide areas, and include Cereus jamacaru, Eucalyptus species, Lantana
camara, Melia azedarach, Opuntia ficus – indica and Sesbania punicea. Erosion is very low
to moderate.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 17
Figure 6-4 Ecoregion and quaternary catchment wherein the development site is situated
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 18
Figure 6-5 Regional vegetation and land type wherein the development site is situated
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 19
7. Methodology
The ecological scan involved desktop research and fieldwork, which was performed during a
site visit on 24 November 2016.
7.1. Vegetation & Floral Communities
Due to the small extent of the site and the homogeneous nature, the sampling methods such
as Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance approach (Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg, 1974) was
used as a basis to form broader habitat units but the data was not analysed using
TWINSPAN. The vegetation component therefore included:
A desktop assessment of the vegetation within the region and potential community
structure based on the information obtained from:
ooo SANBI‟s1 Plants of South Africa (POSA) 2527BD QDS
ooo Mucina & Rutherford‟s (2006) vegetation map of southern Africa.
ooo The current North West CBA/ESA Plan.
ooo CI plant species records in the study region (mainly obtained through POSA)
A one day field investigation walking transects through the site:
ooo Noting species, habitats and cover abundance. Sampling points are presented
in Figure 7-1. Plant taxa were identified to species level (some cases, cf would
be used if identification was limiting – cf means „confer‟ or „looks like‟).
Scientific names follow POSA (Accessed, December 2016).
ooo Recording any observed alien and invasive plant species on site was also
conducted. The identification of declared weeds and invader species as
promulgated under: the NEMBA August 2014 regulations (GG37885); and the
amended regulations (Regulation 15) of the Conservation of Agricultural
Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983).
Reporting including vegetation community descriptions, mapping of broad habitat
types / vegetation communities and CI species analysis. For CI floral species,
Likelihood of Occurrence (LO) rating is assigned to each species based on the
availability of suitable habitat using the following scale: Present; Highly likely; Possible;
Unlikely or No Habitat available.
1 The South African National Biodiversity Institute
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 20
Figure 7-1 Main vegetation sampling points
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 21
Limitations
Although most of the site was under agriculture in the past (tilled), it is important to note that
the absence of species on site does not conclude that the species is not present at the site.
Reasons for not finding certain species during the summer site visit may be due to:
The short duration of fieldwork as well as the timing of the fieldwork (just after the
rains). The 2015/2016 season has experienced below average rainfall and is
considered to be in a drought period. This has influenced flowering and species
abundance at other sites that NSS has revisited.
Some plant species, which are small, have short flowering times, rare or otherwise
difficult to detect may not have been detected even though they were potentially
present on site.
Vegetation mapping was based on the brief in-field survey as well as aerial imagery.
Positioning of the vegetation units may not be exact due to potential georeferencing
errors displayed in Google Earth, GPS accuracy in field as well as the age of the aerial
image.
7.2. Fauna
7.2.1. Desktop Research
A list of species potentially occurring in the study area was compiled for:
Mammals, including bats, using the published species distribution maps in Friedmann
& Daly (2004) and Stuart & Stuart (2007), and Monadjem et al. (2010), respectively,
and online species distribution data from MammalMAP (2016) for quarter degree
square (QDS) 2527BD.
Birds, using the list of bird species for QDS 2527BD from the Roberts VII (2013)
mobile phone app., and the latest online list of bird species for pentad 2515_2750 from
the second Southern African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP 2), which included records of
bird species that were observed in QDS 2527BD during the first SABAP (SABAP 1).
Reptiles, using the published species distribution maps in Bates et al. (2014), and
online species distribution data from ReptileMAP (2016) for the relevant QDS.
Frogs, using the published species distribution maps in Minter et al. (2004), and online
species distribution data from FrogMAP (2016) for the relevant QDS.
Butterflies, using the published species distribution maps in Mecenero et al. (2013),
and online species distribution data from LepiMAP (2016) for the relevant QDS.
Odonata, using the published distribution maps in Samways (2008). OdonataMAP
(2016) did not have any species records for QDS 2527BD.
Scorpions, using the published species distribution maps in Leeming (2003), and
online species distribution data from ScorpionMAP (2016).
The lists were refined based on faunal records for the Bojanala District and Springbokvlakte
Thornveld vegetation type in North West Province, which were received from DREAD (pers.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 22
comm. 2016), and our field observations, where the Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO) of each
species was rated using the following scale:
1 Present: the species, or signs of its presence, was recorded.
2 High: the species is highly likely to occur.
3 Moderate: the species may occur.
4 Low: the species is unlikely to occur.
7.2.2. Fieldwork
Faunal observations were made while driving, walking, and inspecting different habitats on
site and in the area. Taxa were identified based on observations of dead or live specimens,
spoor, droppings, burrows and other evidence. Rocks and logs were turned to find reptiles,
scorpions, frogs and invertebrates. A sweep net was used to catch butterflies and odonata.
7.2.3. Conservation Status of Species
The appended faunal lists indicate the status of relevant species according to:
The latest (2015) list of Threatened or Protected Species (ToPS) under the National
Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA 2004).
The latest list of Threatened or Protected Species under the relevant provincial
legislation, in this case, the Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance of 1983.
The latest national or regional Red List assessment for:
Mammals by the SANBI & EWT (2016).
Birds by Taylor et al. (2015).
Reptiles by Bates et al. (2014).
Frogs by Minter et al. (2004).
Butterflies by Mecenero et al. (2013).
Dragonflies and damselflies (odonata) by Samways (2006).
The IUCN Red List, where the global Red List status of a taxon has not been
assessed during the relevant afore-mentioned national or regional Red List
assessment.
An atlas and Red List assessment for South African scorpion species has not yet been
published. Due to spatio-temporal variation in human disturbances, the conservation status
of some species differs between the NEM:BA, provincial legislation and the relevant regional
or national Red List assessment publication. Unless otherwise stated, the most threatened
status of a species is provided in text, whether this is at a global or other spatial scale.
Shown in Figure 7-2 are the IUCN‟s Red List categories, which have been adopted to a
large extent in regional / national /provincial assessments of animal taxa.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 23
Figure 7-2 IUCN Red List categories
7.2.4. Limitations
The site visit was limited to a few day time hours and, therefore, not all potentially
occurring (especially nocturnal) species were likely to be detected.
Some species, which are uncommon, small, migratory, secretive or otherwise difficult
to detect may not have been detected even though they were potentially present.
7.3. Impact Assessment
The Impact Assessment (IA) was performed according to the CSIR‟s IA methodology, which
takes into account:
Impact nature (direct, indirect and cumulative);
Impact status (positive, negative or neutral);
Impact spatial extent (Table 7-1);
Impact duration (Table 7-2);
Potential impact intensity (Table 7-3);
Impact reversibility (high, moderate, low or irreversible);
Irreplaceability of the impacted resource (high, moderate, low or replaceable);
Impact probability (Table 7-4);
Our confidence in the ratings (high, moderate or low);
Overall impact significance (Table 7-5) is calculated as:
Impact significance = Impact magnitude x Impact probability
where
Impact magnitude = Potential impact intensity + Impact duration + Impact extent
Extinct (EX)
Extinct in the wild (EW)
Critically Endangered (CR)
Endangered (EN)
Vulnerable (VU)
Near Threatened (NT)
Least Concern (LC)
Threatened Adequate data
Data Deficient (DD)
Evaluated
Not Evaluated
(NE)
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 24
Table 7-1 Rating of impact spatial extent
EXTENT DESCRIPTION SCORE
Site specific 1
Local (<2km from site) 2
Regional (within 30km of site) 3
National 4
International/Global 5
Table 7-2 Rating of impact duration
DURATION DESCRIPTION SCORE
Temporary (less than 2 years) or duration of the construction period. This impact is fully
reversible. E.g. the construction noise temporary impact that is highly reversible as it will
stop at the end of the construction period
1
Short term (2 to 5 years). This impact is reversible. 2
Medium term (5 to 15 years). The impact is reversible with the implementation of
appropriate mitigation and management actions. 3
Long term (>15 years but where the impact will cease after the operational life of the
activity). The impact is reversible with the implementation of appropriate mitigation and
management actions. E.g. the noise impact caused by the desalination plant is a long
term impact but can be considered to be highly reversible at the end of the project life,
when the project is decommissioned
4
Permanent (mitigation will not occur in such a way or in such a time span that the impact
can be considered transient). This impact is irreversible. E.g. The loss of a
palaeontological resource on site caused by construction activities is permanent and
would be irreversible.
5
Table 7-3 Rating of potential impact intensity
NEGATIVE POTENTIAL INTENSITY DESCRIPTION RATING SCORE
Potential to severely impact human health (morbidity/mortality); or
to lead to loss of species2 (fauna and/or flora)
Very High/Fatal
Flaw 16
Potential to reduce faunal/flora population or to lead to severe
reduction/alteration of natural process, loss of livelihoods / sever
impact on quality of life3, individual economic loss
High 8
Potential to reduce environmental quality – air, soil, water. Potential
Loss of habitat, loss of heritage, reduced amenity Medium 4
Nuisance Medium-Low 2
Negative change – with no other consequence Low 1
POSITIVE POTENTIAL INTENSITY DESCRIPTION RATING SCORE
Potential Net improvement in human welfare High 8
Potential to improve environmental quality – air, soil, water.
Improved individual livelihoods Medium 4
Potential to lead to Economic Development Medium-Low 2
2Note that a loss of species is a global issue and is differentiated from a loss of “floral/faunal” populations.
3Note that a visual impact or air emissions for example could be considered as severely impacting on quality of
life should it constitute more than a nuisance but not being life threatening.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 25
NEGATIVE POTENTIAL INTENSITY DESCRIPTION RATING SCORE
Potential positive change – with no other consequence Low 1
“Irreplaceable loss of a resource” must be factored into the potential intensity rating of an impact
Table 7-4 Rating of impact probability
PROBABILITY DESCRIPTION SCORE
Improbable (little or no chance of occurring <10%) 0.1
Low probability(10 - 25% chance of occurring) 0.25
Probable (25 - 50% chance of occurring) 0.5
Highly probable (50 – 90% chance of occurring) 0.75
Definite (>90% chance of occurring). 1
Table 7-5 Rating of overall impact significance
SCORE RATING SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION
18-26 Fatally
flawed
The project cannot be authorised unless major changes to the engineering
design are carried out to reduce the significance rating.
10-17 High
The impacts will result in major alteration to the environment even with the
implementation on the appropriate mitigation measures and will have an
influence on decision-making.
5-9 Medium
The impact will result in moderate alteration of the environment and can be
reduced or avoided by implementing the appropriate mitigation measures, and
will only have an influence on the decision-making if not mitigated.
<5 Low
The impact may result in minor alterations of the environment and can be
easily avoided by implementing appropriate mitigation measures, and will not
have an influence on decision-making.
8. Survey Results
8.1. Vegetation and Floral Communities
8.1.1. Comparative Regional Vegetation
SANBI frequently collect/collate floral data within Southern Africa and update their PRECIS
database system (National Herbarium Pretoria (PRE) Computerised Information System)
which is captured according to quarter degree squares (QDSs). This is referred to the POSA
database. For this study, the Site falls on the boundary of 2527BD. This QDG yielded 88
species within 36 families. The dominant families being FABACEAE, ASTERACEAE,
MALVACEAE (Table 8-1), with the Herbs representing 44%, shrubs/trees representing 22%,
and Dwarf Shrubs representing just under 10% of the total species listed for the area (Table
8-1). Wooded species in total constitute over 30% of the species within the larger study
region. In terms of the site, structural representation was following the trend presented within
the larger region, with wooded vegetation being dominant (over 40%). The presence of
Graminoids and Geophytic species was limited (Table 8-1).
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 26
Table 8-1 Top 12 dominant families and most dominant growth forms obtained from the
POSA website for the QDS 2527BD and on site
IMPORTANT FAMILIES No. OF
SPP
GROWTH FORMS % TOTAL
SPP
ON SITE
FABACEAE 16 Herb 44.19 31.43
ASTERACEAE 8 Shrub / Tree 22.09 40
MALVACEAE 6 Dwarf shrub 9.3 8.57
ACANTHACEAE 5 Geophyte 6.98 5.71
RUBIACEAE 5 Graminoid 5.81 5.71
POACEAE 5 Succulent 3.49 5.71
APOCYNACEAE 4 Climber 3.49 2.86
LAMIACEAE 4 Scrambler 1.16 -
SCROPHULARIACEAE 3 Cyperoid 1.16 -
AMARANTHACEAE 3 Creeper 1.16 -
ANACARDIACEAE 2 Carnivore 1.16 -
EUPHORBIACEAE 2
8.1.2. On Site - Vegetation Communities
From the field investigations the study area was largely monospecific and almost the entire
site had been previously farmed (over 95% - refer to Table 8-2). Available aerial imagery
from Google Earth dated back to 2009 and still showed past farming practices (Figure 8-1
and Figure 8-3). Therefore it was very difficult to distinguish a diversity of habitat types.
Large trees that have significance as roosting sites for species such as Owls and Raptors
were mapped. A small drainage line within the site was also evident but showed no signs of
soil wetness or vegetation wetland indicators. During the field investigation, wetlands with
limited slope to the north were flooded (Figure 8-4), however, no pooling of water was
evident on the site.
Table 8-2 Broad Habitat/Vegetation communities
Vegetation Community Conservation Significance Area - Ha Area -%
Drainage Habitat
Possible Artificial Drainage Moderate-Low 0.079 0.84
Tree Clumps
Acacia – Boscia Tree Clumps Moderate 0.19 1.99
Transformed Habitat
Transformed - Acacia Open Woodland (old fields) Moderate-Low 8.92 95.28
Disturbed
Built-up Areas Low 0.033 0.35
Track Low 0.14 1.54
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 27
Possible artificial drainage Acacia – Boscia Tree Clumps
Transformed - Acacia Open (old fields) Built Structures
Figure 8-1 Photographs of the different habitats within and surrounding the site
A limited description can be provided for such a homeogenous habitat. However, species
recorded within this habitat included (Figure 8-3):
ACANTHACEAE Justicia flava (Vahl) Vahl
ACANTHACEAE Ruellia patula Jacq.
AMARANTHACEAE Gomphrena celosioides Mart. **
AMARYLLIDACEAE Ammocharis coranica (Ker Gawl.) Herb.
ASPHODELACEAE Aloe greatheadii Schönland var. davyana (Schönland) Glen & D.S.Hardy
ASTERACEAE Felicia muricata (Thunb.) Nees subsp. muricata
ASTERACEAE Tagetes minuta L. **
BORAGINACEAE Heliotropium lineare (A.DC.) Görke
CACTACEAE Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. **
CAPPARACEAE Boscia albitrunca (Burch.) Gilg & Gilg-Ben.
COMMELINACEAE Commelina sp.
CONVOLVULACEAE Evolvulus alsinoides (L.) L.
CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea bolusiana
CUCURBITACEAE Coccinia sessilifolia (Sond.) Cogn.
CUCURBITACEAE Cucumis hirsutus
EBENACEAE Diospyros lycioides Desf. subsp. lycioides
FABACEAE Acacia caffra (Thunb.) Willd.
FABACEAE Acacia karroo Hayne
FABACEAE Acacia mellifera (Vahl) Benth. subsp. mellifera
FABACEAE Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile subsp. kraussiana (Benth.) Brenan
FABACEAE Acacia tortilis (Forssk.) Hayne subsp. heteracantha (Burch.) Brenan
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 28
FABACEAE Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight & Arn.
FABACEAE Indigofera spp
FABACEAE Neorautanenia ficifolius
FABACEAE Peltophorum africanum Sond.
FABACEAE Senna didymobotrya (Fresen.) H.S.Irwin & Barneby
GERANIACEAE Monsonia cf. burkeana
HYACINTHACEAE Ledebouria cf revoluta (L.f.) Jessop
HYPERICACEAE Hypericum spp
MALVACEAE Grewia flava DC.
POACEAE Digitaria eriantha Steud.
POACEAE Panicum maximum Jacq.
SOLANACEAE Solanum (panduriforme) campylacanthum A. Rich.
SOLANACEAE Solanum nigrum L.
SOLANACEAE Solanum sp.
ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Tribulus terrestris L.
RHAMNACEAE Ziziphus mucronata Willd. subsp. mucronata
Grewia flava Coccinia spp
Monsonia cf. burkeana Aptosimum cf. elongatum
Figure 8-2 Examples of species found on site
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 29
Figure 8-3 Vegetation communities within the study area
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 30
Figure 8-4 Photographs of the wetland to the north of the site
8.1.3. Conservation Important Species
It is well documented that heterogeneous landscapes, diverse geology and a range of
environmental conditions, provide a diverse number of habitats for plant species (Pickett, et.al.
1997; O‟Farrell, 2006; KNNCS, 1999). These areas are normally associated with high levels of
species endemism and richness. For example, at least 74% of the 23 threatened Highveld plant
taxa occur on the crests and slopes of ridges and hills (Pfab & Victor 2002). However,
homogenous landscapes, either natural or that have been transformed through historical
farming practices and infrastructural development contain minimal diversity and endemism. The
current site is over 95% transformed through past agricultural activities with a scarce
herbaceous layer. Although considered a brief Vegetation Scan report, NSS has included a
section on Conservation Important (CI) species that were detected or could possibly be
detected on site. Within this section the CI species are discussed. These include the National
Threatened Plant Species Programme (TSP) lists, any Protected species according to the
Nature Conservation Ordinance (12 of 1983) and any specific Endemic or Rare species.
The Threatened Plant Species Programme (TSP) is an ongoing assessment that revises all
threatened plant species assessments made by Craig Hilton-Taylor (1996), using IUCN Red
Listing Criteria modified from Davis et al. (1986). According to the TSP Red Data list of South
African plant taxa (accessed December 2016), there are 46 Red Data listed species (Table 8-3)
out of a possible 2416 species within North West Province (including Data Deficient species) of
which 2 species are Critically Endangered (CR), 4 Endangered (EN), 8 are Vulnerable (VU) and
8 are Near Threatened.
Table 8-3 Numbers of conservation important plant species per Red Data category within
South Africa and North West (date accessed: December 2016)
Threat Status South
Africa
NORTH
WEST
2527BD
EX (Extinct) 28 0 0
EW (Extinct in the wild) 7 0 0
CR PE (Critically Endangered, Possibly Extinct) 57 0 0
CR (Critically Endangered) 332 2 0
EN (Endangered) 716 4 0
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 31
VU (Vulnerable) 1217 8 1
NT (Near Threatened) 402 8 0
Critically Rare (known to occur only at a single site) 153 1 0
Rare (Limited population but not exposed to any direct or potential threat)
1212 4 0
Declining (not threatened but processes are causing a continuing decline in the population)
47 7 0
LC (Least Concern) 13 856 1935 83
DDD (Data Deficient - Insufficient Information) 348 0 0
DDT (Data Deficient - Taxonomically Problematic) 904 12 1
Total spp (including those not evaluated) 23 399 2416 88
**Date accessed – December 2016
From the POSA website (2527BB & 2527BD QDS) 2 listed CI species have been recorded in
the greater region (Table 8-4). Both species require a different habitat to what is found on site.
Plese not that this list is not exhaustive and there is still the potential for other listed species to
occur in the region. The Vulnerable Cullen holubii s known from five locations in the northern
provinces of South Africa (Figure 8-5). These records, however, are all from roadside.
According to von Staden (2008), there are potentially up to 10 locations, as its vegetation type
is quite widespread. About 60% of the habitat has been transformed in the past, mainly by
agriculture. There is ongoing habitat loss due to expanding rural settlements, overgrazing and
alien plant invasion.
Figure 8-5 Photographs and Distribution of the Vulnerable Cullen holubii (Data from Kew
Gardens, UK)
Table 8-4 Potential CI species based on information obtained from 2527BB & 2527BD QDG
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 32
FAMILY SPECIES STATUS FLOWERING
TIME HABITAT LoO
FABACEAE
Cullen holubii (Burtt
Davy) C.H.Stirt. VU Summer
Springbokvlakte
Thornveld -Turf
soils in grasses
Unlikely (but
potentially in
surrounds)
MYROTHAMNACEAE Myrothamnus
flabellifolius Welw. DDT
Spring-
Summer
In shallow soil
over sheets of
rock
Highly Unlikely
* Vulnerable – VU; Data Deficient Taxonomically – DDT
Although no Red Listed species were recorded, Ammocharis coranica is considered a
Protected species under the Nature Conservation Ordinance, 12 of 1983 (Figure 8-6).
Protected Species may not be cut, disturbed, damaged, destroyed without obtaining a permit
from North West Province or a delegated authority. However, recent legislation [which repeals
the Ordinance] passed in January 2017, only weeks before the final compilation of this report,
the Protected Status of species was revised and this species is no longer on the list.
Ammocharis coranica Ammocharis coranica
Figure 8-6 Photographs of Conservation Important plant species on Site
Alien and Invasives Species
Alien, especially invasive4 plant species are a major threat to the ecological functioning of
natural systems and to the productive use of land. The trend within areas with such high past
disturbances and transformation, is considered to be infested with a number of alien species.
However, this was not the case on site. Only seven species were detected of which two were
NEMBA Category 1b listed species (Table 8.5 and Figure 8-7).
Table 8-5 Alien and Invasive Species detected during the survey
4 Two main pieces of national legislation are applicable to alien, invasive plants, namely the:
Conservation of Agriculture Resources Act (CARA; Act 43 of 1983); and
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA; Act 10 of 2004):
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 33
Family Species Growth forms CARA NEMBA
AMARANTHACEAE Gomphrena celosioides Mart. Herb Weed
CACTACEAE Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. Succulent 1 1b
FABACEAE Senna didymobotrya (Fresen.) Shrub 1 1b
SOLANACEAE Solanum nigrum L. Herb Weed
SOLANACEAE Solanum sp. Dwarf shrub -
ASTERACEAE Tagetes minuta L. Herb Weed
FABACEAE Trifolium repens L. Herb Weed
Figure 8-7 The Category 1 Listed Opuntia species
8.2. Fauna
Provided in the appended lists under 13.2-13.8 is the name and conservation status of each
mammal, bird, reptile, frog, butterfly, odonata (dragonfly and damselfly) and scorpion species
that has been recorded, or is considered highly likely or likely to occur in the study area.
8.2.1. Mammals
Approximately 49 mammal species are considered highly likely or likely to occur at least
sporadically in the study area (Appendix 13.2). Many Southern African / Common Mole-rat
mounds were encountered, and the droppings of Scrub Hare, Common / Bush Duiker, and
possibly Kudu were found on site (Figure 8-8). Wild Impala were also seen approximately 1km
south-east of the site. Rupiculous mammal species (e.g. Rock Dormouse, Eastern Rock
Elephant Shrew, Rock Hyrax, Namaqua Rock Mouse, and Jameson‟s Red Rock Hare) and
wetland-associated mammal species (e.g. Marsh Mongoose, otters, vlei rats, Water Rat) are
unlikely to occur due to the absence of suitable habitat on site. Poor grass cover (compounded
by over-grazing) probably precludes mammal taxa such as climbing mice, the Near Threatened
(NT) Southern African Hedgehog and Serval, and the Vulnerable (VU) Black-footed Cat.
Alien Invasive Categories according
to NEM:BA; Act 10 of 2004:
Category 1a
Species requiring compulsory control.
Category 1b
Invasive species controlled by an
invasive species management
programme
Category 2
Invasive species controlled by area
Category 3
Invasive species controlled by activity
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 34
Increasing levels of human settlement in the area have presumably precluded e.g. Aardvark,
African Wild Cat and Chacma Baboon.
Common Mole-rat
(Cryptomys hottentotus) mounds
Common Duiker
(Sylvicapra grimmia) droppings
Figure 8-8 Evidence of mammal species on site
Apart from various Data Deficient rodent and shrew species, six Protected and/or threatened
mammal species may occur at least sporadically in the study area (Table 8-6).
The Cape Fox is classified as a national Protected Species (PS). Given that it
preferentially inhabits mesic to arid grassland (as opposed to savanna), and that there are
few records for this species from the Bojanala District of North West Province (Power
2011), it was rated with a moderate Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO) at best.
The Leopard, which is listed as a national PS, and as globally and regionally VU, was
rated with a moderate LoO. Although this species is widespread in the District (Power
2011), increasing levels of human settlement in the study region likely pose a growing
threat to this species.
The Brown Hyena, which is listed as a national PS, and as globally and regionally NT, is
found throughout the District where it favours areas with rugged terrain (Power 2011).
Given the lack of rugged terrain near the study area, this species was rated with a
moderate LoO.
The Aardwolf is listed as a provincial Protected Game (PG) species. It is found throughout
the District (Power 2011) and was rated with a high LoO.
The Steenbok is listed as a provincial PG species. It is common throughout the District
(Power 2011) and was rated with a high LoO.
The regional status of African Striped Weasel has recently been uplisted from Least
Concern to NT. Although it occurs widely in the District, it is secretive and rare and as
such, was rated with a moderate LoO.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 35
Table 8-6 Potentially occurring conservation important mammal species
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL
RED LIST
STATUS
REGIONAL
RED LIST
STATUS
LoO
QDS SITE
Vulpes chama Cape Fox PS
LC (S) LC 3 3
Panthera pardus Leopard PS PWA Schedule 4 Section 15(1)(c) VU (D) VU 3 3
Hyaena brunnea Brown Hyena PS PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT (D) NT 3 3
Proteles cristata Aardwolf
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC (S) LC 2 2
Raphicerus campestris Steenbok
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC (S) LC 2 2
Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel
LC (U) NT 2 3
Status: D = Declining; LC = Least Concern; NT = Near Threatened; PG = Protected Game; PS = Protected Species; PWA = Protected Wild Animal; S = Stable; U = Unknown
Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO): 2 = High; 3 = Moderate
Sources: Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (1983); NEM:BA ToPS (2015); IUCN (2016); MammalMAP (2016); SANBI & EWT (2016)
Table 8-7 Potentially occurring conservation important bird species
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA
LEGAL
STATUS
NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL
RED LIST
STATUS
REGIONAL
RED LIST
STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Gyps africanus Vulture, White-backed EN PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) CR CR 1
3
Gyps coprotheres Vulture, Cape EN PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) EN EN 1 1 3
Torgos tracheliotos Vulture, Lappet-faced EN PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) EN EN 1
3
Polemaetus bellicosus Eagle, Martial EN PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) VU EN 1
3
Aquila rapax Eagle, Tawny EN PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC EN 1
3
Aquila nipalensis Eagle, Steppe
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) EN LC 1
3
Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) VU VU 1
3
Falco biarmicus Falcon, Lanner
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC VU 1 1 3
Falco vespertinus Falcon, Red-footed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT NT 1
2
Coracias garrulus Roller, European
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC NT 1
2
Pterocles gutturalis Sandgrouse, Yellow-throated
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC NT 1
3
Ciconia abdimii Stork, Abdim‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC NT 1 1 3
Leptoptilos crumeniferus Stork, Marabou
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC NT 1
3 Status: CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; LC = Least Concern; NT = Near Threatened; PG = Protected Game; VU = Vulnerable
Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO): 1 = Present; 2 = High; 3 = Moderate
Sources: Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (1983); Roberts VII (2013); NEM:BA ToPS (2015); Taylor et al. (2015); SABAP 2 (2016)
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 36
8.2.2. Birds
Approximately 414 bird species are listed for QDS 2527BD (Roberts VII 2013), of which 236
were rated with a high or moderate LoO in the study area. Approximately 215 bird species have
been recorded in pentad 2515_2750 (SABAP 2 2016), and 34 bird species were detected
during the brief site visit (Appendix 13.3). No rupicolous or montane birds (e.g. rock thrushes,
Jackal Buzzard, Rock Kestrel and Verreaux‟s Eagle) or water birds (e.g. bitterns, cormorants,
crakes, ducks, grebes, flamingos, kingfishers, night herons, pelicans, sandpipers, stints, etc.)
are likely to occur due to the absence of rocky / montane and aquatic / wetland habitat on site.
The bird species that were recorded during the site visit represent common, widespread
species that are tolerant to an extent of anthropogenic disturbance (e.g. Helmeted Guineafowl,
prinias, shrikes). A couple of Spotted Eagle-owls with three nestlings, and the nest of potentially
a small raptor were the most noteworthy bird observations on site.
Potential small raptor nest Spotted Eagle-owl
(Bubo africanus) nestling
Red-backed Shrike
(Lanius collurio)
Black-chested Prinia
(Prinia flavicans)
Western Cattle Egret
(Bubulcus ibis)
Cape Glossy Starling
(Lamprotornis nitens)
Figure 8-9 Evidence of bird species on site
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 37
In addition to many regionally-occurring bird species that are classified as provincial Protected
Game, at least 13 bird species, which are nationally Protected and/or globally or regionally
threatened, may occur at least sporadically in the study area (Table 8-7).
The White-backed Vulture, which is globally and regionally Critically Endangered (CR),
and nationally Endangered (EN) under NEM:BA, typically inhabits lowland savanna with
Acacia trees. It is a gregarious species congregating at carcasses, in thermals, and at
roost sites. Breeding birds nest in loose colonies, and require tall trees for nesting.
Although this species is listed for QDS 2527BD by Roberts VII (2013), it was not recorded
in this QDS during the SABAP 1, nor has it been recorded in pentad 2515_2750 during
the SABAP 2 (2016). The species was rated with a moderate LoO because although
White-backed Vultures may soar / forage over the study area, they are unlikely to nest on
site.
The Cape Vulture, which is EN globally, regionally and under NEM:BA, is usually found
near mountains where it breeds and roosts on cliffs. However, individuals can travel large
distances to search for carrion in open country, and this species was recorded in pentad
2515_2750 during 2009 (SABAP 2 2016). The likelihood of this species foraging over the
study area was, therefore, rated as moderate.
The Lappet-faced Vulture, which is EN globally, regionally and under NEM:BA, typically
inhabits dry savanna where it constructs solitary nests mainly in Acacia, but also
Terminalia and Balanites trees. Individual Lappet-faced Vultures can travel large
distances in search of carrion, although this vulture species is also known to hunt prey.
Although there is no SABAP record for this species from QDS 2527BD or pentad
2515_2750, the likelihood of this species visiting the site was rated as moderate.
The Martial Eagle, which is also EN under NEM:BA, inhabits a wide range of wooded
habitats where there are large trees for nesting and a sufficient abundance of large prey.
Although this species is unlikely to nest on site, the likelihood of it foraging over the study
area was rated as moderate.
The Tawny Eagle, which is EN regionally and under NEM:BA, favours open savanna
woodland but is also capable of colonizing treeless areas where pylons can support nest
structures (Roberts VII 2013). Although large trees and pylons are not present in the
immediate study area, the likelihood of this species foraging over the study area was
rated as moderate.
The Steppe Eagle, which does not have a national threatened or Protected status, has
been listed as globally EN. This is because within its European range, the Steppe Eagle
has undergone extremely rapid population declines as a result of the conversion of
steppes to agricultural land, combined with their direct persecution and mortality on power
lines and wind turbines (BirdLife International 2016). Steppe Eagles preferably inhabit
open savanna woodland where they prey primarily on termites but also Red-billed Quelea
nestlings. Considering, however, that there is no SABAP record for this species from QDS
2527BD or pentad 2515_2750, the presence of this species in the study area was rated
as moderate.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 38
The globally and regionally VU Secretarybird inhabits a diversity of grasslands and
savanna where breeding birds typically nest on flat-topped Acacia trees. In situ vegetation
conditions could support Secretarybird foraging and possibly breeding, but disturbance
from increasing human settlement in the region could be problematic. Given this, and that
there is no SABAP record for this species from QDS 2527BD or pentad 2515_2750, the
presence of this species in the study area was rated as moderate.
The regionally VU Lanner Falcon favours open grassland or woodland in the vicinity of
cliff or electricity pylon breeding sites (Roberts VII 2013). Although cliffs and pylons are
absent /limited, small birds and other suitable prey for Lanner Falcons are not limited in
the study area. Given that this species was in fact recorded in pentad 2515_2750 during
March 2016 (SABAP 2 2016), the likelihood of Lanner Falcons foraging over the study
area was rated as moderate.
The globally and nationally NT Red-footed Falcon is considered highly likely to occur in
the study area. It favours open semi-arid and arid savannas, and preys mainly on insects,
especially termites and grasshoppers (Roberts VII 2013).
The regionally NT European Roller overwinters in South Africa primarily in dry wooded
savanna and bushy plains, and is known to forage in agricultural habitats including fallow
lands. Although there is no SABAP record for this species from QDS 2527BD or pentad
2515_2750, the presence of this species in the study area was rated as high.
The regionally NT Yellow-throated Sandgrouse favours short grassy plains and cultivated
fields where grass seeds can be found. The movements of these birds are not well
understood; some populations are resident while others are nomadic (Roberts VII 2013).
The sporadic occurrence of this species on site was, therefore, rated with a moderate
likelihood at best.
The regionally NT Abdim‟s Stork inhabits grassland, savanna woodland and cultivated
fields where it preys on mainly insects (especially orthoptera), army worms, and small
vertebrates (Roberts VII 2013). Although Abdim‟s Stork does not breed in South Africa,
these birds require large trees or cliffs for roosting at night. As such, it is unlikely that this
species would roost on site, but it may occasionally forage in the study area. Given that
this species was recorded in pentad 2515_2750 during 2011 (SABAP 2 2016), it was
rated with a conservative moderate LoO.
The regionally NT Marabou Stork favours semi-arid areas where populations are
concentrated in game reserves where carrion is readily available. Marabou Storks are
primarily scavengers, which may frequent rubbish dumps, but also catch small vertebrate
and insect prey. Nests are constructed in tall trees often near water, and birds roost
communally at traditional sites (Roberts VII 2013). Although Marabous are unlikely to
roost or nest on site, individuals may occasionally forage in the study area and, therefore,
this species was rated with a conservative moderate LoO.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 39
8.2.3. Reptiles
Approximately 62 reptile species are considered highly likely or likely to occur at least
occasionally in the study area (Appendix 13.4). Of these, the ubiquitous Speckled Rock Skink,
Common Dwarf Gecko, and Cape/Transvaal Gecko were encountered on site (Figure 8-10).
Regionally occurring rupicolous reptiles (e.g. the Southern Rock Agama, Common and Jone‟s
girdled lizards, Turner‟s and Spotted Dwarf geckos, and Rock Monitor) and wetland-associated
reptile species (e.g. the South African Marsh and Serrated Hinged terrapins, South Eastern and
Western Natal green snakes, and Water Monitor) are unlikely to occur due to the absence of
suitable habitat on site.
Speckled Rock Skink
(Trachylepis punctatissima)
Cape/Transvaal Gecko
(Pachydactylus capensis/affinis)
Figure 8-10 Evidence of reptile species on site
In addition to the fact that many local reptile species are listed as provincial Protected Game
species, two are also listed as nationally Protected or threatened (Table 8-8).
The globally NT Striped Harlequin is a partially fossorial snake species, which is known to
inhabit old termite mounds most often in grassland, and which feeds exclusively on thread
snakes. Although the site is representative of savanna (not grassland), a good number of
active and moribund termitaria were found, and as thread snakes almost certainly occur
on site, the Striped Harlequin Snake was rated with a conservative moderate LoO.
The Southern African Python is listed as a PS under NEM:BA. It typically inhabits
savanna where it favours rocky areas and water. Although there is limited rock cover on
site, there is a nearby wetland, and the area still supports suitable prey (as large as
Impala) for Pythons. This species was, therefore, rated with a moderate LoO.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 40
Table 8-8 Potentially occurring conservation important reptile species
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL
STATUS
GLOBAL OR
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS SITE
Homoroselaps dorsalis Striped Harlequin Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1NT 3m 3
Python natalensis Southern African Python PS WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 3 Status: 1 = Global; 2 = Regional; LC = Least Concern; NT = Near Threatened; PS = Protected Species; WA = Wild Animal
Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO): 2 = High; 3 = Moderate
Sources: Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (1983); Bates et al. (2014); NEM:BA ToPS (2015); ReptileMAP (2016)
Table 8-9 Potentially occurring conservation important frog species
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS GLOBAL RED LIST
STATUS REGIONAL RED
LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS SITE
Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC (D) NT 2 3 Status: D = Declining; LC = Least Concern; NT = Near Threatened; PG = Protected Game
Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO): 2 = High; 3 = Moderate
Sources: Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (1983); Minter et al. (2004); NEM:BA ToPS (2015); FrogMAP (2016); IUCN (2016)
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 41
8.2.4. Frogs
Approximately 15 frog species are considered highly likely or likely to occur at least occasionally
in the study area (Appendix 13.5). Apart from the Bushveld Rain Frog, which is a terrestrial-
breeding frog, the remaining listed species are unlikely to breed on site due to the lack of
aquatic / wetland habitat (which is limited to one tiny depression / puddle with ephemeral water).
Rather, most of the listed frog species are likely to be concentrated around the nearby wetland
that is situated on the main access road to the site. This wetland provides shallow, seasonal /
ephemeral water with some emergent grassy vegetation (Figure 8-11), which appears
favourable for breeding by most of the listed frog species, including the African and Giant
bullfrogs (Du Preez & Carruthers 2009). The latter species is the only potentially occurring
threatened frog species (Table 8-9).
The Giant Bullfrog is listed as regionally NT by Minter et al. (2004). For most of the year
bullfrogs are buried in a state of torpor, and are typically active aboveground for a night or
two after heavy rain in November-January. Bullfrog breeding is limited to a few days in the
year and occurs in shallow, standing, seasonal water with emergent grassy vegetation.
Bullfrog foraging appears to be concentrated around their burrows, which may be situated
up to 1km from their breeding site (Yetman & Ferguson 2011). Given this, and that the
nearby wetland is considered potentially suitable for Giant Bullfrog breeding, it is possible
that bullfrogs may forage and even be buried on the proposed development site.
Figure 8-11 Photographs of the nearby wetland where various frog species may breed
8.2.5. Butterflies
Based on the published butterfly distribution maps in Mecenero et al. (2013), approximately 79
butterfly species are considered highly likely to occur in QDS 2527BD, and 71 were rated with a
moderate LoO (including 33 species with marginal distribution ranges). LepiMAP (2016) holds
records for 41 butterfly species from QDS 2527BD (Appendix 13.6), many of which are likely to
occur on, or at least pass through the site. During the brief site visit, only four butterfly species
were encountered, which included the ubiquitous Brown-veined White, Blue Pansy, and Pea
Blue, and the Acacia-associated Silver-spotted Grey (Figure 8-12).
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 42
Brown-veined White
(Belenois aurota) Silver-spotted Grey (Crudaria leroma)
Pea Blue
(Lampides boeticus) Blue Pansy
(Junonia oenone oenone) Figure 8-12 Evidence of butterfly species on site
No potentially occurring butterfly species has a known threatened or Protected status. The rare
Marsh Sylph, which was rated with a moderate LoO in QDS 2527BD, is unlikely to occur on site
as its larval food plant Leersia hexandra is not present.
8.2.6. Odonata
Based on the published odonatan distribution maps in Samways (2006), approximately 23
dragonfly and damselfly species are considered highly likely to occur in QDS 2527BD, and 26
were rated with a moderate LoO (Appendix 13.6). During the brief site visit, only one odonatan
species was encountered, which was not suprising given the lack of aquatic / wetland habitat on
site. The dragonfly species on site was the ubiquitous and terrestrial-wandering Pantala (Figure
8-12), which has a Biotic Index score of 0. Samways‟ (2008) Biotic Index is “based on three
criteria: geographical distribution, conservation status and sensitivity to change in habitat. It
ranges from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 9. A very common, widespread species which is
highly tolerant of human disturbance scores 0. In contrast, a range-restricted, threatened and
sensitive endemic species scores 9.”
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 43
Pantala (Pantala flavescens) Figure 8-13 Evidence of odonata species on site
None of the potentially occurring odonatan species has a threatened or Protected status. The
nationally VU Cryptic Spreadwing, which is known from Mosdene Swamps, Naboomspruit in
Limpopo Province, was rated with a low LoO. Although this species inhabits pools and swamps
in hot savanna, these must be accompanied by an abundance of tall grass, reeds and nearby
thick bush. The wetland on the access road to the site does not meet all these criteria.
8.2.7. Scorpions
Approximately eight scorpion species are considered highly likely or likely to occur in the study
area (Appendix 13.8), and numerous scorpion holes were encountered on site (Figure 8-14).
Scorpion species most likely to occur based on their distributions, and observed habitat
conditions (especially substrates and shelter) on site, include the common and highly venomous
Parabuthus mossambicensis, the widespread Uroplectes carinatus, which is found in scrapes
under rocks and surface debris in areas of hard substrate (such as the site). Regionally-
occurring rupiculous scorpion species (e.g. Uroplectes planimanus and Opistophthalmus
pugnax) were rated with a low LoO given the lack of rocky habitat on site. None of the
potentially occurring scorpion species has a threatened or Protected status.
Figure 8-14 Photographs of scorpion burrows on site
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 44
9. Areas of Significance
The site significance assessment, which includes a significance map for terrestrial biodiversity
on the site, was based on the findings from the ecological scan, as well as relevant
international, national and provincial planning and other biodiversity conservation initiatives as
described below.
9.1. International Areas of Conservation Significance
The site does not fall into any proclaimed:
Ramsar Site.
World Heritage Site.
Important Bird Area (IBA) – see Figure 9-1.
9.2. National and Regional Areas of Conservation Significance
As inferred earlier in this report, a number of biodiversity features with recognised national or
provincial conservation importance, require consideration.
9.2.1. Protected Areas
Borakalalo Game Reserve is situated approximately 7.5km north-west of the proposed
development site (Figure 9-1). The Reserve encompasses the 800ha Klipvoor Dam on the
Moretele River, and features riparian, broad-leafed and Acacia woodland. The Dam is
renowned for fishing, and the Reserve supports more than 35 mammal and 350 bird species,
including rarities such as the African Finfoot and the White-backed Night Heron.
9.2.2. Terrestrial Priority Areas & Threatened Ecosystems
The Terrestrial Component (Rouget et al. 2004) of the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment
integrated data on species, habitats and ecological processes to identify areas of greatest
terrestrial biodiversity significance. This resulted in the identification of nine spatial terrestrial
Priority Areas, which represent high concentrations of biodiversity features and/or areas where
there are few options for meeting biodiversity targets. The proposed development site is
situated within the Bushveld-Bankenveld Priority Area (Figure 9-2), which faces the highest
pressure of the nine identified national Priority Areas (NBI 2004).
A list of Threatened Ecosystems within each terrestrial Priority Area was gazetted on 9
December 2011 under the NEM:BA (Act 10 of 2004). The Threatened Ecosystems occupy
9.5% of South Africa, and were selected according to six criteria which included;(1) irreversible
habitat loss,(2) ecosystem degradation,(3) rate of habitat loss,(4) limited habitat extent and
imminent threat,(5) threatened plant species associations, and (6) threatened animal species
associations. The proposed development site is situated within the Vulnerable Springbokvlakte
Thornveld Threatened Ecosystem (Figure 9-2).
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 45
The following biodiversity management measures for Threatened Ecosystems are
recommended:
Promote connectivity of natural habitat within and between Threatened Ecosystems.
Prioritise alien vegetation clearance and habitat rehabilitation in Threatened Ecosystems
and in areas important for maintaining ecological processes.
Ensure that ecological processes such as periodic fires or pollination are maintained.
Adopt nature-friendly farming practices such as biological pest control, maintaining strips
of indigenous vegetation between fields, and reducing the use of fertilisers and
pesticides near indigenous vegetation or wetlands.
Promote sustainable land uses that are compatible with maintaining ecosystem
functioning.
9.2.3. Water Resources
A broad spectrum of international, regional and national legislation and guidelines applies to the
protection of wetlands and their biodiversity. The National Water Act (NWA; Act 36 of 1998) is
the principle legal instrument relating to water resource management in South Africa. Under the
NWA, all wetlands and their buffer zones are protected.
The NWA points out that it is:
“the National Government's overall responsibility for and authority over the
nation's water resources and their use, including the equitable allocation of
water for beneficial use, the redistribution of water, and international water
matters.”
According to Chapter 3 of the NWA on the protection of water resources:
“The protection of water resources is fundamentally related to their use,
development, conservation, management and control. Parts 1, 2 and 3 of this
Chapter lay down a series of measures which are together intended to ensure the
comprehensive protection of all water resources.”
9.2.4. Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas
The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project (NFEPA; Driver et al. 2011) provides
strategic spatial priorities for conserving freshwater ecosystems and supporting sustainable use
of water resources in South Africa. Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) were
identified using a range of criteria dealing with the maintenance of key ecological processes and
the conservation of ecosystem types and species associated with rivers, wetlands and
estuaries. The NFEPA spatial data indicate that the two nearest major drainage lines, i.e. the
Kutswane and Tolwane rivers, have not yet been classified, and there are no wetland FEPAs in
close proximity to the site (Figure 9-3).
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 46
9.2.5. North West C-Plan
The North West Conservation or C-Plan is the outcome of systematic conservation planning by
the North West Department of Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development (DREAD
2012), for improved conservation of biodiversity in the province. According to the latest
available C-Plan, the southern “half” of the proposed development site is situated within an
Irreplaceable or Critical Biodiversity Area 1 (CBA1; Figure 9-4). This CBA was likely assigned
because the site is situated within the Springbokvlakte Thornveld Endangered vegetation type
and Vulnerable Threatened Ecosystem. Available satellite imagery and our field surveys have
confirmed, however, that virtually the entire site comprises regenerating previously cultivated
land.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 47
Figure 9-1 Location of the site in relation to Important Bird Areas, and Protected Areas
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 48
Figure 9-2 Location of the site relative to regional terrestrial Priority Areas and Threatened Ecosystems
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 49
Figure 9-3 Location of the site in relation to regional Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 50
Figure 9-4 Location of the site in relation to North West CBAs and ESAs
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 51
9.3. Local Areas of Conservation Significance
The conservation significance of local biodiversity was rated and mapped based on:
Ecological sensitivity (including renewability/success for rehabilitation);
Level/Extent of disturbance.
Presence of CI species (identified at the vegetation unit/habitat level); and
Conservation value (at a regional, national, provincial and local scale).
Identified habitat units within the study site were ranked into High, Medium-high, Medium,
Medium-low or Low classes in terms of significance. This was undertaken according to a
sensitivity-value analysis (scoring in Table 9-1) and included input based on knowledge of the
area, on the ground investigations and experience when dealing with ecological systems and
processes. A summary overview of scoring the Areas of Local Conservation Significance is
presented in Table 9-1 and illustrated in Figure 9-6.
Table 9-1 Scoring Range for the Areas of Significance
Category Scoring Range
Upper Lower
High 15 11.1
Moderate - High 11 7.1
Moderate 7 3.1
Moderate - Low 3 -0.9
Low -1 -5
Based on our findings and relevant national and provincial biodiversity conservation planning
initiatives, a combined biodiversity significance map for the site was compiled (Figure 9-6),
where:
High rated areas (not on site) include:
ooo The nearby wetland on the main access road to the site - given the national,
provincial and local importance of wetlands (Figure 9-5). On a national scale all
wetlands are Protected. Although the present ecoscan did not entail a wetland
assessment, the nearby wetland appears to be Largely Natural, and its highest-
scoring ecosystem service is probably maintenance of biodiversity including
potential CI faunal species such as the NT Giant Bullfrog.
Moderate-High rated areas (not on site) include:
ooo A recommended 100m buffer around the afore-mentioned wetland, to help buffer it
from increased noise, dust, erosion, sedimentation, faunal mortalities, with
increased traffic resulting from the proposed development.
Moderate rated areas include:
ooo The more significant trees on site that are providing roosting and nesting habitat
for owl and raptor species.
Moderate-Low rated areas include:
ooo The transformed, but in recovery, Acacia open woodland (previously ploughed
areas). This also included the potential artificial drainage system. This area holds
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 52
little to no conservation value in terms of wetland functioning and showed no
typical wetland characteristics as per the DWS guidelines.
Low rated areas include:
ooo Infrastructure.
The Areas of Significance map should guide the proposed development where:
Disturbances should preferentially occur in Moderate – Low and Low sensitive areas.
High sensitive areas should be avoided.
Moderate-High sensitive areas should be subject to very limited disturbance and rigorous
mitigation.
Moderate sensitive areas may be disturbed with effective mitigation.
Moderate-Low sensitive areas may be disturbed with minimal mitigation.
Low sensitive areas should be rehabilitated if not developed.
Figure 9-5 Potential wetland areas (Desktop estimate)
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 53
Figure 9-6 Areas of biodiversity conservation significance (broad infrastructure included)
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 54
10. Impacts & Mitigation
Potential impacts of the proposed project on biodiversity are summarized in Table 11-1, and
briefly discussed below, followed by recommended measures to mitigate these during
relevant phases of the development.
10.1. Impacts
10.1.1. Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Increased traffic on the main access road to the site will cause loss or degradation of the
adjoining wetland due to increased dust, erosion and sedimentation with road upgrading and
maintenance, and increased traffic during all phases of the development. Given the high
conservation importance of wetlands at a national and provincial level, degradation of the
roadside wetland was rated with High significance.
10.1.2. Loss of terrestrial vegetation and faunal habitat
Although the site is situated in the Springbokvlakte Thornveld Endangered vegetation type
and Vulnerable Threatened Ecosystem, construction of the chicken facility is occurring on
an area that is 95% transformed through past agricultural activities. The main concern is that
a number of trees could be lost in the development process, which provide habitat for
roosting and nesting birds including owls and potentially small raptors. Given the small size
and transformed nature of the site, the loss of terrestrial vegetation and faunal habitat was
rated with Medium significance.
10.1.3. Loss of CI or medicinal flora
Observed Protected (Ordinance listed) and potentially occurring conservation important (CI)
(Red listed) or medicinal plant species could be lost as a result of vegetation clearing during
construction, and increased traffic and human harvesting during all phases of the
development. This potential loss of CI flora was rated with Medium significance.
10.1.4. Loss of CI fauna
Of greatest concern is the potentially occurring NT Giant Bullfrog, which could be adversely
affected by increased traffic to the site, loss or degradation of the nearby wetland, earth-
moving activities on site, and possible human harvesting. The potentially occurring NT
Striped Harlequin Snake could be adversely affected by destruction of termitaria especially
during clearing of the construction site. This potential loss of these NT faunal species was
rated with Medium significance.
10.1.5. Introduction and proliferation of alien plant species
From the field investigation, a limited diversity (i.e. species richness and abundance) of alien
flora was evident on site. However, this may change during all phases of the project,
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 55
particularly with an expected increase in annual (herbaceous) species. This could occur due
to the importation of alien seeds within construction materials such as building soil, with the
influx of vehicles (seeds within tyre tread) and people as well as fodder (containing invasive
alien plant seeds). Given the Endangered status of the regional Springbokvlakte vegetation
type, this potential impact was rated with High significance in the absence of effective
control measures.
10.1.6. Increased dust and erosion
Clearing of vegetation and earth-moving activities during construction are likely to increase
bare ground, dust and the land's susceptibility to erosion. These impacts are, however, likely
to have a limited and short term impact and were, therefore, rated with Medium significance.
10.1.7. Sensory disturbance of fauna
Sensory disturbance of fauna from dust, noise and light pollution could cause many fauna to
vacate the area, at least temporarily during construction and decommissioning. Animals that
would be most adversely affected include calling and/or secretive nocturnal species. Less
sensitive common species are likely to tolerate low levels of noise and light pollution, and
some species may even benefit - such as bats and frogs, which may forage on insects
attracted to lights.
10.1.8. Environmental contamination
Various contaminants are present in chicken effluent including nutrients, pathogens,
veterinary pharmaceuticals (including inter alia antibiotics), and naturally excreted hormones.
Inappropriate slurry management and improper disposal of carcasses as well as excess
fodder, chemicals (e.g. pesticides) and any other operational waste could cause
contamination / eutrophication of local soils. Considering that the site is not situated
upstream of a major wetland or other water resource, this potential impact was rated with
Medium significance.
10.1.9. Poor / Inappropriate control of animal pests
During operation, substandard animal husbandry / hygiene and waste generation in the form
of chicken effluent and excess fodder could facilitate aggregation and/or breeding of
invertebrate pests such as flies, weevils, ants, termites, cockroaches, fleas, lice, mites, ticks,
etc. Poor waste management and hygiene practices also have the potential to attract
vertebrate pests including rodents (Black Rat, House Mouse), mammalian Carnivores
(Black-backed Jackal, dogs, cats) and birds (Common Myna, Pied Crow, Sacred Ibis).
Proliferation of alien pest species could adversely affect indigenous fauna through
competition, predation and disease transmission, and inappropriate poisoning of pests could
affect non-target predatory and scavenging animals. As a number of threatened or Protected
mammals (e.g. Brown Hyaena and Leopard) and birds (e.g. vultures, Lanner and Red-footed
falcons, and Marabou Stork) may occur at least occasionally in the study area, this potential
impact was rated with High significance.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 56
10.1.10. Disease transmission
Diseases could be transmitted either directly from chickens and their effluent, or indirectly
from an increased prevalence of pests, which could in turn adversely affect the population
dynamics of native fauna in the surrounding area. This potential impact was rated with
Medium significance.
10.1.11. Altered burning
The development could result in an increase or decrease in wild fires in the study area.
Although fires might be unintentionally ignited with carcass burning, for example, it is more
likely that burning will be prohibited for human and infrastructural safety. Lack of fire will
eventually cause local vegetation to become more woody / bush-encroached. This impact
was rated with Medium significance.
10.2. Management and Mitigation Recommendations
Recommended management and mitigation measures are detailed in Table 11-2. With
successful implementation of the recommended measures, the significance of impacts can
be reduced to Low, as highlighted in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1 Summary of impact significance, without and with mitigation
POTENTIAL IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE
CONSTRUCTION Without mitigation With mitigation
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road High Low
Loss of terrestrial vegetation and faunal habitat Medium Low
Loss of CI or medicinal flora Medium Low
Loss of CI fauna Medium Low
Introduction and proliferation of alien species High Low
Increased dust and erosion Medium Low
Sensory disturbance of fauna Medium Low
OPERATION
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road High Low
Environmental contamination Medium Low
Poor / Inappropriate control of animal pests High Low
Disease transmission Medium Low
Altered burning Medium Low
Introduction and proliferation of alien species High Low
Loss of CI or medicinal flora Medium Low
Sensory disturbance of fauna Medium Low
DECOMMISSIONING
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road High Low
Introduction and proliferation of alien species High Low
Increased dust and erosion Medium Low
Sensory disturbance of fauna Low Low
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 57
11. Concluding Remarks
With the implementation of the mitigation measures suggested in this report, the significance
of impacts on site can be reduced to Low. Based on the information obtained in the site visit
and the information that was available to date, it is NSS‟s opinion that there are no fatal
flaws to the project itself. If the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, NSS
has no objection to the project going forward. Most importantly, the nearby wetland on the
main access road to the site will need to be protected from disturbance.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 58
Table 11-1 Impact Assessment
POTENTIAL IMPACTS MITIGATION STATUS EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY REVERSIBILITY IRREPLACEABILITY PROBABILITY PROBABILITY SIGNIFICANCE CONFIDENCE
RATING SCORE RATING SCORE RATING SCORE RATING RATING RATING SCORE RATING SCORE RATING SCORE
CONSTRUCTION
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Increased traffic on the main access road to the site will cause loss or degradation of the adjoining wetland due to increased dust, erosion and sedimentation with road upgrading and construction traffic.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium 4 Moderate reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Definite (>90% chance) 1 High 10 High 3
With Neutral Site specific 1 Temporary (<2 years) 1 Low 1 High reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Low probability (10-25% chance) 0,25 Low 1 High 3
Loss of terrestrial vegetation and faunal habitat
Although the site is situated in the Springbokvlakte Thornveld Endangered vegetation type and Vulnerable Threatened Ecosystem, construction of the chicken facility will result in destruction of an already transformed habitat. Of concern is that a number of trees could be lost, which provide habitat for roosting and nesting birds including owls and potentially small raptors.
Without Negative Site specific 1 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium 4 Moderate reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Probable (25-50% chance) 0,5 Medium 5 High 3
With Negative Site specific 1 Long term (>15 years) 4 Low 1 High reversibility Low irreplaceability Low probability (10-25% chance) 0,25 Low 2 High 3
Loss of CI or medicinal flora
Observed Protected and potentially occurring conservation important (CI) or medicinal plant species could be lost as a result of vegetation clearing and increased traffic and human harvesting.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium 4 Moderate reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Probable (25-50% chance) 0,5 Medium 5 High 3
With Negative Site specific 1 Temporary (<2 years) 1 Low 1 Moderate reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Low probability (10-25% chance) 0,25 Low 1 Medium 2
Loss of CI fauna
Of greatest concern is the potentially occurring NT Giant Bullfrog, which could be adversely affected by increased traffic to the site, loss or degradation of the nearby wetland, earth-moving activities on site, and possible human harvesting. The potentially occurring NT Striped Harlequin Snake could be adversely affected by destruction of termitaria during clearing of the construction site.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium 4 Low reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Highly probable (50-90% chance) 0,75 Medium 8 Medium 2
With Negative Site specific 1 Short term (2-5 years) 2 Low 1 High reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Low probability (10-25% chance) 0,25 Low 1 Medium 2
Introduction and proliferation of alien species
From the field investigation, a limited diversity (i.e. species richness and abundance) of alien flora was evident on site. However, this may change during all phases of the project, particularly with an expected increase in annual (herbaceous) species. This could occur due to the importation of alien seeds within construction materials such as building soil, with the influx of vehicles (seeds within tyre tread) and people as well as fodder (containing invasive alien plant seeds).
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Permanent 5 Medium 4 Moderate reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Definite (>90% chance) 1 High 11 High 3
With Negative Site specific 1 Temporary (<2 years) 1 Low 1 Moderate reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Probable (25-50% chance) 0,5 Low 2 Medium 2
Increased dust and erosion
Clearing of vegetation and earth-moving activities during construction are likely to increase bare ground, dust and the land's susceptibility to erosion. These impacts are, however, likely to have a limited and short term impact.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Short term (2-5 years) 2 Medium 4 Moderate reversibility Low irreplaceability Highly probable (50-90% chance) 0,75 Medium 6 Medium 2
With Negative Site specific 1 Short term (2-5 years) 2 Low 1 High reversibility Low irreplaceability Probable (25-50% chance) 0,5 Low 2 Medium 2
Sensory disturbance of fauna
Sensory disturbance of fauna from dust, noise and light pollution could cause many fauna to vacate the area, at least temporarily during construction. Animals that would be most adversely affected include calling and/or secretive nocturnal species.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Short term (2-5 years) 2 High 8 High reversibility Low irreplaceability Definite (>90% chance) 0,75 Medium 9 High 3
With Negative Site specific 1 Short term (2-5 years) 2 Low 1 High reversibility Low irreplaceability Highly probable (50-90% chance) 0,75 Low 3 Medium 2
OPERATION
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Road maintenance and regular traffic on the main access road to the site will cause loss or degradation of the adjoining wetland due to dust, erosion and sedimentation.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium 4 Moderate reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Definite (>90% chance) 1 High 10 High 3
With Neutral Site specific 1 Temporary (<2 years) 1 Low 1 High reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Low probability (10-25% chance) 0,25 Low 1 High 3
Environmental contamination
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 59
POTENTIAL IMPACTS MITIGATION STATUS EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY REVERSIBILITY IRREPLACEABILITY PROBABILITY PROBABILITY SIGNIFICANCE CONFIDENCE
RATING SCORE RATING SCORE RATING SCORE RATING RATING RATING SCORE RATING SCORE RATING SCORE
Various contaminants are present in chicken effluent including nutrients, pathogens, veterinary pharmaceuticals (including inter alia antibiotics), and naturally excreted hormones. Inappropriate slurry management and improper disposal of carcasses as well as excess fodder, chemicals (e.g. pesticides) and any other operational waste could cause contamination / eutrophication of local soils.
Without Negative Site specific 1 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium 4 Low reversibility Low irreplaceability Highly probable (50-90% chance) 0,75 Medium 7 Low 3
With Negative Site specific 1 Short term (2-5 years) 2 Low 1 High reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Low probability (10-25% chance) 0,25 Low 1 Medium 2
Poor / Inappropriate control of animal pests
During operation, substandard animal husbandry / hygiene and waste generation in the form of chicken effluent and excess fodder could facilitate aggregation and/or breeding of invertebrate pests. Poor waste management and hygiene practices also have the potential to attract vertebrate pests. Proliferation of alien pest species could adversely affect indigenous fauna through competition, predation and disease transmission, and inappropriate poisoning of pests could affect non-target predatory and scavenging animals.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 High 8 Low reversibility Low irreplaceability Highly probable (50-90% chance) 0,75 High 11 High 3
With Negative Site specific 1 Short term (2-5 years) 2 Medium-low 2 Moderate reversibility Low irreplaceability Probable (25-50% chance) 0,5 Low 3 Medium 2
Disease transmission
Diseases could be transmitted either directly from chickens and their effluent, or indirectly from an increased prevalence of pests, which could in turn adversely affect the population dynamics of native fauna in the surrounding area.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 High 8 Moderate reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Probable (25-50% chance) 0,5 Medium 7 Medium 2
With Negative Site specific 1 Temporary (<2 years) 1 Low 1 High reversibility Low irreplaceability Low probability (10-25% chance) 0,25 Low 1 Medium 2
Altered burning
The development could result in an increase or decrease in
wild fires in the study area. Although fires might be unintentionally ignited with carcass burning, for example, it is more likely that burning will be prohibited for human and infrastructural safety. Lack of fire will eventually cause local vegetation to become more woody / bush-encroached.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium-low 2 Moderate reversibility Low irreplaceability Highly probable (50-90% chance) 0,75 Medium 6 High 3
With Negative Site specific 1 Short term (2-5 years) 2 Low 1 Moderate reversibility Low irreplaceability Probable (25-50% chance) 0,5 Low 2 Medium 2
Introduction and proliferation of alien species
An increase in invasive alien flora is likely to be facilitated by the continued influx of vehicles, people and materials (such as fodder containing invasive alien plant seeds), especially where the site is disturbed, and in the absence of any control measures.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium 4 Low reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Definite (>90% chance) 1 High 10 High 3
With Negative Site specific 1 Short term (2-5 years) 2 Medium-low 2 High reversibility Low irreplaceability Low probability (10-25% chance) 0,25 Low 1 Medium 2
Loss of CI or medicinal flora
CI or medicinal plant species could be lost as a result of human harvesting during operation. Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium 4 Moderate reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Probable (25-50% chance) 0,5 Medium 5 High 3
With Negative Site specific 1 Temporary (<2 years) 1 Low 1 Moderate reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Low probability (10-25% chance) 0,25 Low 1 Medium 2
Sensory disturbance of fauna
Certain fauna are likely to avoid the site with continued noise and light pollution during operation. Less sensitive common species are likely to tolerate low levels of noise and light pollution, and some species may even benefit - such as bats and frogs, which may forage on insects attracted to lights.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium-low 2 Low reversibility Low irreplaceability Definite (>90% chance) 1 Medium 8 High 3
With Negative Site specific 1 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium-low 2 High reversibility Low irreplaceability Probable (25-50% chance) 0,5 Low 4 Medium 2
DECOMMISSIONING
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Increased traffic on the main access road to the site during decommissioning will cause loss or degradation of the adjoining wetland due to increased dust, erosion and sedimentation.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium 4 Moderate reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Definite (>90% chance) 1 High 10 High 3
With Neutral Site specific 1 Temporary (<2 years) 1 Low 1 High reversibility Moderate irreplaceability Low probability (10-25% chance) 0,25 Low 1 High 3
Introduction and proliferation of alien species
If no rehabilitation and monitoring efforts are implemented, Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Long term (>15 years) 4 High 8 Low reversibility Low irreplaceability Definite (>90% chance) 1 High 14 High 3
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 60
POTENTIAL IMPACTS MITIGATION STATUS EXTENT DURATION INTENSITY REVERSIBILITY IRREPLACEABILITY PROBABILITY PROBABILITY SIGNIFICANCE CONFIDENCE
RATING SCORE RATING SCORE RATING SCORE RATING RATING RATING SCORE RATING SCORE RATING SCORE
alien species will continue to increase and spread. With Negative Site specific 1 Long term (>15 years) 4 Medium-low 2 Moderate reversibility Low irreplaceability Probable (25-50% chance) 0,5 Low 4 Medium 2
Increased dust and erosion
Possible demolission and landscaping activities during decommissioning are likely to increase bare ground, dust and the land's susceptibility to erosion. These impacts are, however, likely to have a limited and short term impact.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Short term (2-5 years) 2 Medium 4 Moderate reversibility Low irreplaceability Highly probable (50-90% chance) 0,75 Medium 6 Medium 2
With Negative Site specific 1 Short term (2-5 years) 2 Low 1 High reversibility Low irreplaceability Probable (25-50% chance) 0,5 Low 2 Medium 2
Sensory disturbance of fauna
Sensory disturbance of fauna from noise, dust and light pollution will cause certain remaining fauna to vacate the site, at least temporarily during decommissioning.
Without Negative Local (<2km from site) 2 Temporary (<2 years) 1 Medium-low 2 Moderate reversibility Low irreplaceability Highly probable (50-90% chance) 0,75 Low 4 High 3
With Negative Site specific 1 Temporary (<2 years) 1 Low 1 High reversibility Low irreplaceability Low probability (10-25% chance) 0,25 Low 1 Medium 2
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 61
Table 11-2 Mitigation measures
OBJECTIVE / TARGET MITIGATION / MANAGEMENT ACTION MONITORING
METHODOLOGY FREQUENCY RESPONSIBILITY
CONSTRUCTION
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Avoid disturbing the wetland (and its buffer).
Establish measures on the access road to reduce dust, erosion and sedimentation
*Design measures to effectively control vehicle access, vehicle speed, dust, stormwater run-off, erosion and sedimentation on the road.
Pre-construction CSIR / Jam Rock Management
*Implement the measures that were designed to control impacts on the road preferably during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
During construction Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
Loss of terrestrial vegetation and faunal habitat
Avoid unnecessary loss of vegetation and faunal habitats.
Restrict all clearing of vegetation and disturbance of habitat from construction activities to the final infrastructure footprint.
*Ensure that all infrastructure avoids all Very High and High sensitive areas. During design CSIR / Jam Rock Management
*Clearly demarcate or fence in the construction site. Relocate CI plant and animal specimens from the construction footprint, with advice from an appropriate specialist.
Pre-construction CSIR / Jam Rock Management
Maintain the viability of the indigenous seed bank in excavated soil so that this can be used for subsequent re-vegetation of any disturbed areas. No landscaping should be performed around the facilities.
*Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing growing plants should be least.
During construction Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
*Briefly and effectively stockpile topsoil preferably 1-1.5m in height. Natural vegetation must be allowed to recover in areas of disturbance. If recovery is slow, then a seed mix for the area (using indigenous grass species listed within this report) should be sourced and planted.
During construction Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew, with advice from a Botanist /Horticulturist
Avoid unnecessary loss of indigenous trees and termitaria. *Identify and mark indigenous trees on the ground. Those that are small and cannot be avoided should be transplanted elsewhere on site.
Design / pre-construction Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew, with advice from an Ecologist
Loss of CI or medicinal flora
Minimize loss of CI or medicinally important flora, and promote rehabilitation.
Adhere to law and best practice guidelines regarding the displacement of CI and medicinally important floral species.
*Obtain permits to remove CI species. Pre-construction CSIR / Jam Rock Management
*Transplant CI and medicinally important floral specimens from the infrastructure footprint to suitable locations in the surrounding area.
Pre-construction Botanist / horticulturist
*Obtain guidance from a suitably qualified vegetation specialist or horticulturist regarding the collection, propagation/storage and transplantation of plants.
During construction Botanist / horticulturist
Loss of CI fauna
Minimize mortality and displacement of fauna, especially CI species.
Adhere to law and best practice guidelines regarding the displacement of CI faunal species.
*Appoint an appropriate specialist to relocate CI fauna from vegetation, termitaria and soil that is removed from the infrastructure footprint.
Pre-construction Zoologist/Ecologist
Prohibit collection or persecution of fauna. *Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Pre-construction Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
*Check open trenches for trapped animals (e.g. hedgehogs, reptiles and frogs), and relocate trapped animals with advice from an appropriate specialist.
Daily during construction Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew, Zoologist
*Prohibit disturbance and persecution (e.g. poaching) of fauna, and introduction of pets and other alien fauna (apart from the production chickens).
All phases Jam Rock Management
*Provide notices and training to inform workers about dangerous animals (e.g. venomous snakes and scorpions) and prohibited activities (e.g. poaching).
All phases Jam Rock Management/ External Ecologist (Advisory Capacity)
*Walk fence lines to remove snares. As regularly as possibly during all phases
Jam Rock Management / Farm Management
Introduction and proliferation of alien species
Minimize the introduction and spread of invasive alien species during construction.
Regulate / limit access by potential vectors of alien plants. *Carefully regulate / limit access by vehicles and materials to the construction site. Demarcate or fence in the construction area.
Prior to and during construction
Jam Rock Management / Farm Management
*Prohibit the introduction of domestic animals such as dogs and cats.
*Remove any woody alien species that germinate. Pre Construction and continued through the life of the project
Jam Rock Management / Farm Management
*Plant only locally indigenous flora if landscaping needs to be done. All Phases Jam Rock Management / horticulturist
Maintain a tidy construction site. *Keep construction activities neat and tidy. When complete, remove all sand piles and landscape all uneven ground while re-establishing a good topsoil layer.
During construction Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
By law, remove and dispose of Category 1b alien species on site. All Category 2 species that remain on site must require a permit.
*Remove Category species using mechanical methods, and minimize soil disturbance as far as possible. During construction Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
Increased dust and erosion
Minimize dust and erosion. Implement effective measures to control dust and erosion. *Limit vehicles, people and materials to the construction site. During construction Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 62
OBJECTIVE / TARGET MITIGATION / MANAGEMENT ACTION MONITORING
METHODOLOGY FREQUENCY RESPONSIBILITY
*Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least. During construction
*Revegetate denude areas with locally indigenous flora a.s.a.p. During construction
*Implement erosion protection measures on site. Measures could include bunding around soil stockpiles, and vegetation of areas not to be developed.
During construction
*Implement effective and environmentally-friendly dust control measures, such as mulching or periodic wetting.
During construction
Sensory disturbance of fauna
Minimize sensory disturbance of fauna.
Time construction activities to minimize sensory disturbance of fauna.
*Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
During pre-construction and construction planning
Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
Minimize noise pollution. *Minimize noise to limit its impact on calling and other sensitive fauna (e.g. frogs and Secretarybird). Prior to and throughout construction
Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
Minimize light pollution. *Limit construction activities to day time hours. Throughout construction Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
*Minimize or eliminate security and construction lighting, to reduce the disturbance of nocturnal fauna. Throughout construction Construction Crew
OPERATION
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Avoid disturbing the wetland (and its buffer).
Maintain measures on the access road to reduce dust, erosion and sedimentation
*Monitor and maintain the road impact control measures to ensure that they remain effective. During operation Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager
Environmental contamination
Avoid environmental (including soil) contamination
Ensure that excrement/effluent, carcasses, feed, and other operational waste and hazardous materials are appropriately and effectively contained and disposed of without detriment to the environment.
*Ensure that the facility is designed in accordance with international best practice norms, and with advice from an appropriate specialist, to ensure that there is no environmental contamination from effluent, fodder, carcasses and other waste, and to ensure that there is also effective storm water management.
During design CSIR / Jam Rock Management
During design CSIR / Jam Rock Management/ Agricultural experts
*Adhere to best practice chicken husbandry and waste disposal norms. Throughout operation CSIR / Jam Rock Management/ Agricultural experts
Ensure that there are appropriate control measures in place for any contamination event
*Establish appropriate emergency procedures for accidental contamination of the surroundings. Waste recycling should be incorporated into the facility‟s operations as far as possible. Designate a secured, access restricted, signposted room for the storage of potentially hazardous substances such as herbicides, pesticides dips and medications. All hazardous waste should be disposed of at an appropriate licensed facility for this.
Prior to operation Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager.
*Rehabilitate contaminated areas a.s.a.p. in accordance with advice from appropriate contamination and environmental specialists.
A.s.a.p. following contamination
Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager / External contamination specialists
*Educate workers regarding the handling of hazardous substances and about waste management and emergency procedures with regular training and notices and talks.
At least annually during operation
Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager.
Poor / Inappropriate control of animal pests
Ensure efficient and effective pest control that does not affect non-target animals.
Prevent, detect and control pest infestations before they become a problem, through frequent and careful cleaning, monitoring and control.
*Ensure that there is effective storm water drainage around the facility. During design, construction and operation
Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager and on-site team.
*Ensure that the facility is sufficiently ventilated to keep floors, bedding, and fodder as dry as possible.
*Prevent and manage unwanted animal access to fodder.
*Check that fan louvers (if installed) work properly, and close fans completely when off.
*Ensure that floors are sloped and slatted to facilitate drainage.
*Screed concrete floors properly to seal all cracks and limit the pooling of effluent and water.
*Effectively maintain and seal all pipes and reservoirs containing slurry, to prevent animals from accessing the effluent.
*Clean floors regularly.
*Clean up excess fodder regularly from under troughs and feed bins.
* Keep areas surrounding the facility free of spilled manure and litter.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 63
OBJECTIVE / TARGET MITIGATION / MANAGEMENT ACTION MONITORING
METHODOLOGY FREQUENCY RESPONSIBILITY
*Remove all trash, and sources of feed and water for pests from the outside perimeter of the facilities.
*Keep weeds and gress mowed to 5cm or less immediately around the facilities, to reduce the prevalence of insects.
*Electrocution devices are available to kill flies, while other mechanical devices include traps, sticky tapes or baited traps.
*Control rodents through effective sanitation, rodent proofing and (as humane as possible) extermination.
*Rodenticides are not advised.
*Ensure that measures to control pests are tightly restricted to areas where these are problematic. Pest control measures should be taxon-specific. If necessary, advice should be sought from an appropriate specialist.
Disease transmission
Avoid transmission of diseases to wildlife.
Ensure that pests and other potential vectors are unable to enter areas where they might encounter production animals, carcasses, excrement or bedding, by thoroughly sealing these areas using effective, humane and environmentally-friendly means.
*Maintain appropriate pest control measures. Life of operation particularly at the onset of the rainy season
Farm Manager and Team
*Effectively maintain and seal all pipes and reservoirs containing slurry, to prevent animals from accessing the effluent.
Throughout operation Farm Manager and Team
Altered burning
Avoid fire on site, without prohibiting wild fires in the surrounding natural environment.
Ensure that flammable materials are stored in an appropriate safe house. Ensure that there are appropriate control measures in place for any accidental fires. If artificial burning is considered necessary to reduce risks to human and infrastructure safety from wild fires, a fire management plan should be compiled with input from an appropriate floral specialist, and diligently implemented. Annual wild fires should be prohibited.
*Create safe storage on the premises for flammable materials. If artificial burning is considered necessary, establish and implement a fire management plan with emergency fire procedures.
Prior to, and through operation
CSIR /Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager
*Maintain an effective fire break between the facility and the surrounding natural environment. Prior to, and at least annually during operation
CSIR /Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager
*Educate workers about the fire plan and emergency procedures with regular training and notices. At least annually during operation
CSIR /Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager
Introduction and proliferation of alien species
Minimize the introduction and spread of invasive alien species during operation.
Regulate / limit access by potential vectors of alien plants. *Carefully regulate / limit access by vehicles and materials to the site.
Throughout operation
Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager
*Prohibit the introduction of domestic animals such as dogs and cats.
*Plant only locally indigenous flora if landscaping needs to be done.
Maintain a neat and tidy production facility. * Employ best practices regarding tilling of soil and weed management. Farm Management/Agricultural experts
* Minimize the accumulation or dispersal of excess fodder on site. Farm Management
By law, remove and dispose of Category 1b alien species on site. All Category 2 species that remain on site must require a permit.
*Remove Category species using mechanical methods, and minimize soil disturbance as far as possible. Alien debris could be donated to a local community.
CSIR /Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager, with advice from a floral specialist
Loss of CI or medicinal flora
Prohibit harvesting of CI flora. Harvesting of indigenous flora for medicine, fire wood, building materials, and other purposes must be prohibited.
*Educate the personnel prior to operation, and with yearly refresher talks. Prior to and during operation
Farm Manager and Team
Sensory disturbance of fauna
Minimize sensory disturbance of fauna.
Limit the effects of light pollution on nocturnal fauna (including numerous insects, bats and hedgehogs).
Minimize essential lighting. *Ensure that all outdoor lights are angled downwards and/or fitted with hoods. *Avoid using metal halide, mercury or other bulbs that emit high UV (blue-white) light that is highly and usually fatally attractive to insects. *Use bulbs that emit warm, long wavelength (yellow-red) light, or use UV filters or glass housings on lamps to filter out UV.
During design, construction and operation
Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager
Limit the effects of noise from operational activities on fauna such as carnivores, frogs and Secretarybirds.
Minimize unavoidable noise. *Conduct regular maintenance of machinery and ventilation systems / fans (if any).
Prior to and during operation
Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager/ External Noise Specialists
DECOMMISSIONING
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 64
OBJECTIVE / TARGET MITIGATION / MANAGEMENT ACTION MONITORING
METHODOLOGY FREQUENCY RESPONSIBILITY
Avoid disturbing the wetland (and its buffer).
Maintain measures on the access road to reduce dust, erosion and sedimentation
*Monitor and maintain the road impact control measures to ensure that they remain effective. Until there is no more project-associated activity on site
Jam Rock Management and Farm Manager
Introduction and proliferation of alien species
Minimize introduction and spread of invasive alien species during decommissioning.
By law, remove and dispose of Category 1b alien species on site. All Category 2 species that remain on site must require a permit.
*Remove Category species using mechanical methods, and minimize soil disturbance as far as possible. Throughout decommissioning until all Category 1b and Category 2 alien species have been effectively removed from the site
Jam Rock Management / Farm Management
Increased dust and erosion
Minimize dust and erosion. Implement effective measures to control dust and erosion. *Limit vehicles to the construction site. Throughout decommissioning
Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
*Commence (and preferably complete) decommissioning during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
Throughout decommissioning
*Revegetate denude areas with locally indigenous flora a.s.a.p. Throughout decommissioning
*Implement erosion protection measures on site to reduce erosion and sedimentation of the local drainage system. Measures could include bunding around soil stockpiles, and vegetation of areas not to be developed.
Throughout decommissioning
*Implement effective and environmentally-friendly dust control measures, such as mulching or periodic wetting of the entrance road.
Throughout decommissioning
Sensory disturbance of fauna
Minimize sensory disturbance of fauna.
Time demolition / rehabilitation activities to minimize sensory disturbance of fauna.
*Commence (and preferably complete) demolition / rehabilitation during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Throughout decommissioning
Project and Construction managers
Limit disturbance from noise. * Minimize noise to limit its impact on sensitive fauna. Throughout decommissioning
Jam Rock Management / Farm Management
Limit disturbance from light. *Limit demolition activities to day time hours. Throughout decommissioning
Jam Rock Management / Farm Management
*Minimize or eliminate security and other lighting, to reduce the disturbance of nocturnal fauna. Throughout decommissioning
Jam Rock Management / Farm Management
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 65
12. References
ACCUWEATHER. 2015. Website: www.accuweather.com. Accessed in March 2015.
AGIS (AGRICULTURAL GEO-REFERENCED INFORMATION SYSTEM). 2010. Website:
www.agis.agric.za. Accessed in 2010.
BARNES K.N. 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho & Swaziland.
Birdlife South Africa, Johannesburg.
BATES, M.F., BRANCH, W.R., BAUER, A.M., BURGER, M., MARAIS, J., ALEXANDER, G.J. &
DE VILLIERS, M.S. 2014. Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and
Swaziland. Strelitzia 32. SANBI, Pretoria.
DAVIS S.D, DROOP S.J.M., GREGERSON P., HENSON L., LEON C.J., VILA-LOBOS J.L.,
SYNGE H. & ZANTOVSKA J. 1986. Plants in Danger: What do we Know? IUCN, Gland.
DRIVER A., MAZE K., LOMBARD A.T., NEL J., ROUGET M. & TURPIE J.K. 2004. South
African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment Summary Report.
DRIVER, A., Nel, J.L., SNADDON, K., MURRAY, K., ROUX, D.J., HILL L., SWARTZ, E.R.,
MANUEL, J. & FUNKE, N. 2011. Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem
Priority Areas. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
DU PREEZ L. & CARRUTHERS V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa.
Struik Nature, Cape Town.
DWAF (DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY). 1999. Resource Directed
Measures for Protection of Water Resources. Volume 4. Wetland Ecosystems. Version
1.0. DWAF, Pretoria.
DWAF. 2005. A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetland riparian
areas. DWAF, Pretoria.
DWAF. 2013. Website: http://www.dwaf.gov.za/WAR/systems.html. Accessed in August 2011.
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION (DWS), 2014. A Desktop Assessment of the
Present Ecological State, Ecological Importance and Ecological Sensitivity per Sub
Quaternary Reaches for Secondary Catchments in South Africa. Secondary: B3.
Compiled by RQIS-RDM: http://www.dwa.gov.za/iwqs/rhp/eco/peseismodel.aspx
FRIEDMANN Y. & DALY B. 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A
Conservation Assessment. CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist
Group (SSC/IUCN), EWT, Johannesburg.
FROGMAP. 2015. Website: http://vmus.adu.org.za. Accessed in March 2015.
GERMISHUIZEN , G. & MEYER, N.L. (EDS.). 2003. Plants of Southern Africa: an annotated
checklist. Strelitzia 17, SANBI, Pretoria
GDARD (GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT).
2011. Gauteng Conservation Plan Version 3.3 (C-Plan 3.3). GDARD, Johannesburg.
GDARD (GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT).
2014. GDARD Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments Version 2. GDARD,
Johannesburg.
HENNING G.A., TERBLANCHE R.F. & BALL J.B. 2009. South African Red Data Book:
Butterflies. SANBI Biodiversity Series 13. SANBI, Pretoria.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 66
HILTON-TAYLOR, C. 1996. Red Data List of southern African plants. Strelitzia 4. National
Botanical Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.
IUCN. 2013.1. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2013.1. Website:
www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed in 2013.
KNNCS, 1999. Nomination Proposal for the Drakensberg Park alternatively known as
Ukhahlamba Park to be listed as a World Heritage Site. Kwazulu-Natal Nature
Conservation Service. Amafa Akwazulu Natali - Heritage Kwazulu Natal.
KOTZE, D.C, MARNEWECK, G.C, BATCHELOR, A.L., LINDLEY, D.S. & COLLINS, N.B., 2008.
WET-EcoServices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by
wetlands. WRC Report No TT 339/08, Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
LEEMING J. 2003. Scorpions of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.
LEPIMAP. 2015. Website: http://vmus.adu.org.za. Accessed in March 2015.
MACFARLANE D.M., KOTZE D.C., ELLERY W.N., WALTERS D., KOOPMAN V., GOODMAN
P., GOODMAN P. & GOGE C. 2008. WETLAND TOOLS ASSESSMENT. WRC REPORT
MAMMALMAP. 2015. Website: http://vmus.adu.org.za. Accessed in March 2015.
MEASEY, G.J. 2011. Ensuring a Future for South Africa‟s Frogs: A Strategy for Conservation
Research. SANBI Biodiversity Series 19. SANBI, Pretoria.
MECENERO, S., BALL J.B., EDGE D.A., HAMER M.L., HENNING G.A., KRUGER M.A.,
PRINGLE, E.L., TERBLANCHE R.F. & WILLIAMS M.C. 2013. Conservation Assessment
of Butterflies of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: Red List and Atlas. Saftronics and
the ADU, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
MINTER L., BURGER M., HARRISON J.A., BRAACK H.H., BISHOP P.J. & KLOEPFER D.
2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.
SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.
MONADJEM A., TAYLOR P.J., COTTERILL F.P.D. & SCHOEMAN M.C. 2010. Bats of
Southern and Central Africa – A Biogeographic and Taxonomic Synthesis. Wits University
Press, Johannesburg.
MUCINA L. & RUTHERFORD M.C. 2006. The Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and
Swaziland. Strelitzia 19, SANBI, Pretoria.
MUELLER-DOMBOIS, D., and H. ELLENBERG: 1974 Aims and Methods of Vegetation
Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York
NBI, (2004). National spatial biodiversity assessment, Strelizia 17, NBI, Kirstenbosch.
NEL, L.J. & DRIVER, A. 2012: National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: Technical Report:
Volume 2: Freshwater Component. CSIR & SANBI, Pretoria.
NEWMAN K. 2002. Newman‟s Birds of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.
O‟FARRELL P. 2006. Ecosystem Services and Benefits to Farmers. Conservation Farming
Project.
ODONATAMAP. 2015. Website: http://vmus.adu.org.za. Accessed in March 2015.
OLLIS, D., SNADDON, K., JOB, N & MBONA, N. 2013. Wetland Classification using the
recently published Classification Systems for Wetlands: Inland Systems. SANBI, Pretoria.
PFAB M.F. & VICTOR J.E. 2002. Threatened Plants of Gauteng, South Africa. South African
Journal of Botany 68: 370-375.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 67
PICKETT S.T.A., OSTFELD R.S., SHACHAK M. & LICKENS G.E. 1997. The Ecological Basis of
Conservation: Heterogeneity, Ecosystems, and Biodiversity. Chapman and Hall. New York.
REPTILEMAP. 2015. Website: http://vmus.adu.org.za. Accessed in March 2015.
ROUGET, M., REYERS, B., JONAS, Z., DESMET, P., DRIVER, A., MAZE, K., EGOH, B.,
COWLING, R.M., MUCINA, L. & RUTHERFORD, M.C. 2004. South African National
Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Volume 1: Terrestrial
Component. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
SABAP 1 & 2 (FIRST AND SECOND SOUTHERN AFRICAN BIRD ATLAS PROJECTS). 2013.
Website: http://sabap2.adu.org.za. Accessed in 2013.
SABAP 1 & 2 (FIRST AND SECOND SOUTHERN AFRICAN BIRD ATLAS PROJECTS). 2015.
Website: http://sabap2.adu.org.za. Accessed in 2015.
SAMWAYS, M. J. 2008. Dragonflies and Damselflies of South Africa. Pensoft, Sofia, 297 pp.
SAMWAYS, M.J. 2006. National Red List of South African dragonflies (Odonata).
Odonatologica, 35: 341–368.
SCORPIONMAP. 2015. Website: http://vmus.adu.org.za. Accessed in March 2015.
STUART C. & STUART T. 2007. Field Guide to the Mammals of Southern Africa. Struik Nature,
Cape Town.
TOPS (THREATENED OR PROTECTED SPECIES LIST). 2007. National Environmental
Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10, 2004): Publication of lists of Critically
Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species. February 2007.
von STADEN, L. 2008. Cullen holubii (Burtt Davy) C.H.Stirt. National Assessment: Red List of
South African Plants version 2015.1. Accessed on 2017/02/14
YETMAN C.A. 2012. Conservation Biology of the Giant Bullfrog, Pyxicephalus adspersus
(Tschudi, 1838). PhD thesis. University of Pretoria, Pretoria
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 68
13. Appendices
13.1. POSA list for QDS 2527BD
Family ** Species Growth forms
ACANTHACEAE Barleria bolusii Oberm. Herb
ACANTHACEAE Blepharis integrifolia (L.f.) E.Mey. ex Schinz var. integrifolia
Herb
ACANTHACEAE Crabbea angustifolia Nees Herb
ACANTHACEAE Hypoestes forskaolii (Vahl) R.Br. Herb
ACANTHACEAE Justicia flava (Vahl) Vahl Dwarf shrub
ACHARIACEAE Kiggelaria africana L. Shrub, tree
AMARANTHACEAE Achyropsis leptostachya (E.Mey. ex Meisn.) Baker & C.B.Clarke
Herb
AMARANTHACEAE Cyathula lanceolata Schinz Herb
AMARANTHACEAE Hermbstaedtia odorata (Burch.) T.Cooke var. aurantiaca (Suess.) C.C.Towns.
Herb
ANACARDIACEAE Ozoroa paniculosa (Sond.) R.& A.Fern. var. salicina (Sond.) R.& A.Fern.
Shrub, tree
ANACARDIACEAE Searsia pyroides (Burch.) Moffett var. gracilis (Engl.) Moffett
Shrub, tree
APOCYNACEAE Asclepias aurea (Schltr.) Schltr. Herb
APOCYNACEAE Cryptolepis oblongifolia (Meisn.) Schltr. Scrambler
APOCYNACEAE Pachycarpus schinzianus (Schltr.) N.E.Br. Succulent
APOCYNACEAE Raphionacme velutina Schltr. Geophyte
ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine angustifolia Poelln. Geophyte
ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium cordatum (Thunb.) Sw. Geophyte
ASTERACEAE Dicoma anomala Sond. subsp. gerrardii (Harv. ex F.C.Wilson) S.Ortíz & Rodr.Oubiña
Herb
ASTERACEAE Helichrysum argyrosphaerum DC. Herb
ASTERACEAE Helichrysum candolleanum H.Buek Herb
ASTERACEAE Helichrysum cerastioides DC. var. cerastioides Herb
ASTERACEAE Senecio pentactinus Klatt Herb
ASTERACEAE Senecio pleistocephalus S.Moore Climber
ASTERACEAE Senecio serratuloides DC. Herb
ASTERACEAE Vernonia sutherlandii Harv. Herb
CAPPARACEAE Cleome maculata (Sond.) Szyszyl. Herb
CONVOLVULACEAE Evolvulus alsinoides (L.) L. Herb
CONVOLVULACEAE Seddera suffruticosa (Schinz) Hallier f. Dwarf shrub
CYPERACEAE Bulbostylis burchellii (Ficalho & Hiern) C.B.Clarke Cyperoid
DIPSACACEAE Scabiosa columbaria L. Herb
EBENACEAE Euclea undulata Thunb. Shrub, tree
ELATINACEAE Bergia decumbens Planch. ex Harv. Dwarf shrub
EUPHORBIACEAE Acalypha glabrata Thunb. var. pilosa Pax Shrub, tree
EUPHORBIACEAE Croton gratissimus Burch. var. subgratissimus (Prain) Burtt Davy
Shrub, tree
FABACEAE Acacia tortilis (Forssk.) Hayne subsp. heteracantha (Burch.) Brenan
Shrub, tree
FABACEAE Dolichos angustifolius Eckl. & Zeyh. Herb
FABACEAE Eriosema cordatum E.Mey. Herb
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 69
Family ** Species Growth forms
FABACEAE Indigofera adenoides Baker f. Creeper
FABACEAE Indigofera frondosa N.E.Br. Shrub
FABACEAE Mundulea sericea (Willd.) A.Chev. subsp. sericea Shrub, tree
FABACEAE Ophrestia oblongifolia (E.Mey.) H.M.L.Forbes var. oblongifolia
Herb
FABACEAE Otoptera burchellii DC. Climber
FABACEAE Rhynchosia confusa Burtt Davy Climber
FABACEAE Rhynchosia monophylla Schltr. Herb
FABACEAE Rhynchosia reptabunda N.E.Br. Climber
FABACEAE Stylosanthes fruticosa (Retz.) Alston Dwarf shrub
FABACEAE Tephrosia longipes Meisn. subsp. longipes var. longipes
Dwarf shrub
FABACEAE * Trifolium repens L. Herb
FABACEAE Xerocladia viridiramis (Burch.) Taub. Shrub
FABACEAE Zornia capensis Pers. subsp. capensis Herb
GISEKIACEAE Gisekia africana (Lour.) Kuntze var. africana Herb
HYACINTHACEAE Dipcadi marlothii Engl. Geophyte
LAMIACEAE Leucas martinicensis (Jacq.) R.Br. Herb
LAMIACEAE Ocimum angustifolium Benth. shrub
LAMIACEAE Plectranthus caninus Roth succulent
LAMIACEAE Teucrium trifidum Retz. Herb
LENTIBULARIACEAE Utricularia welwitschii Oliv. Carnivore
LYCOPODIACEAE Lycopodiella cernua (L.) Pic.Serm. Geophyte
MALVACEAE Grewia retinervis Burret Shrub
MALVACEAE Hermannia burkei Burtt Davy Climber
MALVACEAE Hermannia floribunda Harv. Dwarf shrub
MALVACEAE Hermannia stellulata (Harv.) K.Schum. Herb
MALVACEAE Hermannia tomentosa (Turcz.) Schinz ex Engl. Herb
MALVACEAE Waltheria indica L. Herb
MORACEAE Ficus salicifolia Vahl Tree
MYROTHAMNACEAE Myrothamnus flabellifolius Welw. Dwarf shrub
ONAGRACEAE * Oenothera rosea L'Hér. ex Aiton Herb
OROBANCHACEAE Cycnium tubulosum (L.f.) Engl. subsp. tubulosum Herb
PEDALIACEAE Dicerocaryum senecioides (Klotzsch) Abels Herb
POACEAE Bothriochloa insculpta (Hochst. ex A.Rich.) A.Camus
Graminoid
POACEAE Eragrostis chloromelas Steud. Graminoid
POACEAE Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees Graminoid
POACEAE Eragrostis hierniana Rendle Graminoid
POACEAE Eragrostis trichophora Coss. & Durieu Graminoid
PORTULACACEAE Portulaca kermesina N.E.Br. succulent
PROTEACEAE Protea caffra Meisn. subsp. caffra Shrub, tree
RHAMNACEAE Phylica paniculata Willd. Shrub, tree
RUBIACEAE Anthospermum rigidum Eckl. & Zeyh. subsp. pumilum (Sond.) Puff
Dwarf shrub
RUBIACEAE Fadogia homblei De Wild. Herb
RUBIACEAE Otiophora calycophylla (Sond.) Schltr. & K.Schum. subsp. calycophylla
Herb
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 70
Family ** Species Growth forms
RUBIACEAE Spermacoce natalensis Hochst. Herb
RUBIACEAE Vangueria parvifolia Sond. Tree
SAPINDACEAE Pappea capensis Eckl. & Zeyh. Shrub, tree
SCROPHULARIACEAE Chaenostoma leve (Hiern) Kornhall Herb
SCROPHULARIACEAE Manulea parviflora Benth. var. parviflora Herb
SCROPHULARIACEAE Melanospermum foliosum (Benth.) Hilliard Herb
SELAGINELLACEAE Selaginella dregei (C.Presl) Hieron. Geophyte
STRYCHNACEAE Strychnos madagascariensis Poir. Shrub, tree
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 71
13.2. Mammal list for the study area
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME RSA
LEGAL STATUS
NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS SITE
BATHYERGIDAE Mole-rats Cryptomys hottentotus Southern African Mole-rat
LC (S) LC 2 1
BOVIDAE Even-toed antelope Aepyceros melampus Impala
LC (S) LC 1 2
Pelea capreolus Vaal Rhebok
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC (S) NT 3 4
Raphicerus campestris Steenbok
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC (S) LC 2 2
Redunca arundinum Southern Reedbuck
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC (S) LC 3 4
Sylvicapra grimmia Bush Duiker
LC (S) LC 2 1
Tragelaphus angasii Nyala
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC (S) LC 2 4
Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck
LC (S) LC 2 4
Tragelaphus strepsiceros Greater Kudu
LC (S) LC 2 1?
CANIDAE Dogs, foxes, jackals & relatives Canis mesomelas Black-backed Jackal
LC (S) LC 2 2
Vulpes chama Cape Fox PS
LC (S) LC 3 3
CERCOPITHECIDAE Baboon & monkeys Cercopithecus pygerythrus
pygerythrus Vervet Monkey
LC (S) LC 2 3
Papio ursinus Chacma Baboon
LC (S) LC 3 4
EMBALLONURIDAE Tomb bats Taphozous mauritianus Mauritian Tomb Bat
LC (U) LC 3 4
ERINACEIDAE Hedgehog Atelerix frontalis (frontalis) Southern African Hedgehog
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC (S) NT 2 4
FELIDAE Cats Caracal caracal Caracal
LC (U) LC 2 2
Felis nigripes Black-footed Cat PS
VU (D) VU 3 4
Felis silvestris Wildcat
LC (D) LC 3 4
Leptailurus serval Serval PS
LC (S) NT 2 4
Panthera pardus Leopard PS PWA Schedule 4 Section 15(1)© NT (D) VU 3 3
GALAGIDAE Bushbabies Galago moholi Moholi Bushbaby
LC (S) LC 2 2
GLIRIDAE Dormice Graphiurus murinus Forest African Dormouse
LC (S) LC 2 3
Graphiurus platyops Flat-headed African Dormouse
LC (U) LC 3 4
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 72
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME RSA
LEGAL STATUS
NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS SITE
HERPESTIDAE Meerkat & mongooses Atilax paludinosus Marsh Mongoose
LC (D) LC 2 4
Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose
LC (S) LC 2 2
Helogale parvula Common Dwarf Mongoose
LC (S) LC 3 4
Herpestes sanguineus Slender Mongoose
LC (S) LC 2 2
Ichneumia albicauda White-tailed Mongoose
LC (S) LC 1 4
Mungos mungo Banded Mongoose
LC (S) LC 3 4
Suricata suricatta Meerkat
LC (U) LC 3 4
HIPPOSIDERIDAE Leaf-nosed & related bats Cloeotis percivali Percival's Short-eared Trident Bat
LC (U) EN 3 4
Hipposideros caffer Sundevall's Leaf-nosed Bat
LC (D) LC 3 4
HYAENIDAE Aardwolf & hyenas Hyaena brunnea Brown Hyena PS PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT (D) NT 3 3
Proteles cristata Aardwolf
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC (S) LC 2 2
HYSTRICIDAE Porcupine Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine
LC (S) LC 2 2
LEPORIDAE Hares & rabbits Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare
LC (D) LC 2 1
Pronolagus randensis Jameson's Red Rock Hare
LC (U) LC 2 4
MACROSCELIDIDAE Elephant shrews Elephantulus
brachyrhynchus Short-snouted Elephant Shrew
LC (U) LC 2 2
Elephantulus myurus Eastern Rock Elephant Shrew
LC (S) LC 2 4
MOLOSSIDAE Free-tailed & related bats Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-tailed Bat
LC (U) LC 2 2
MURIDAE Gerbils, rock mice, vlei rats & relatives Aethomys ineptus Tete Veld Aethomys
LC (U) LC 2 2
Aethomys namaquensis Namaqua Rock Mouse
LC (S) LC 2 4
Dasymys incomatus African Marsh Rat
LC (U) NT 3 4
Gerbilliscus brantsii Highveld Gerbil
LC (U) LC 2 3
Gerbilliscus leucogaster Bushveld Gerbil
LC (S) LC 2 2
Lemniscomys rosalia Single-Striped Lemniscomys
LC (S) LC 2 2
Mastomys coucha Southern African Mastomys
LC (S) LC 2 2
Otomys angoniensis Angoni Vlei Rat
LC (S) LC 1 4
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 73
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME RSA
LEGAL STATUS
NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS SITE
Otomys auratus / irroratus Southern African Vlei Rat
LC (S) LC 2 4
Rhabdomys pumilio Xeric Four-striped Grass Rat
LC (S) LC 3 3
Thallomys paedulcus Acacia Thallomys
LC (U) LC 1 2
MUSTELIDAE Badger, otters, polecat & weasel Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter
LC (S) NT 2 4
Hydrictis maculicollis Spotted-necked Otter
LC (D) VU 3 4
Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat
LC (S) LC 3 4
Mellivora capensis Honey Badger
LC (D) LC 3 3
Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel
LC (U) NT 2 3
NESOMYIDAE Climbing & fat mice & relatives Dendromus melanotis Gray African Climbing Mouse
LC (S) LC 3 4
Dendromus mystacalis Chestnut African Climbing Mouse
LC (S) LC 3 4
Mystromys albicaudatus African White-tailed Rat
EN (D) VU 3 4
Saccostomus campestris Southern African Pouched Mouse
LC (S) LC 2 2
Steatomys pratensis Common African Fat Mouse
LC (S) LC 2 2
NYCTERIDAE Slit-faced bats Nycteris thebaica Egyptian Slit-faced Bat
LC (U) LC 3 2
ORYCTEROPODIDAE Aardvark Orycteropus afer Aardvark PS PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC (U) LC 3 4
PEDETIDAE Spring Hare Pedetes capensis South African Spring Hare
LC (U) LC 3 3
PROCAVIIDAE Hyraxes Procavia capensis Rock Hyrax
LC (U) LC 2 4
RHINOLOPHIDAE Horseshoe bats Rhinolophus blasii Blasius's Horseshoe Bat
LC (D) NT 3 4
Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's Horseshoe Bat
LC (U) LC 2 3
Rhinolophus darlingi Darling's Horseshoe Bat
LC (U) LC 3 4
Rhinolophus simulator Bushveld Horseshoe Bat
LC (D) LC 2 3
SCIURIDAE Squirrels Paraxerus cepapi Smith's Bush Squirrel
LC (S) LC 3 3
Xerus inauris South African Ground Squirrel
LC (S) LC 3 4
SORICIDAE Shrews Crocidura cyanea Reddish-gray Musk Shrew
LC (S) LC 2 3
Crocidura fuscomurina Bicolored Musk Shrew
LC (U) LC 2 4
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 74
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME RSA
LEGAL STATUS
NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS SITE
Crocidura hirta Lesser Red Musk Shrew
LC (U) LC 1 2
Crocidura mariquensis Swamp Musk Shrew
LC (U) NT 2 4
Crocidura silacea Lesser Gray-brown Musk Shrew
LC (S) LC 3 3
Myosorex varius Forest Shrew
LC (S) LC 3 4
Suncus lixus Greater Dwarf Shrew
LC (U) LC 3 4
SUIDAE Hogs & pigs Phacochoerus africanus Common Warthog
LC (S) LC 2 3 Potamochoerus larvatus (koiropotamus) Bush-pig
LC (S) LC 3 4
THRYONOMYIDAE Cane Rat Thryonomys swinderianus Greater Cane Rat
LC (U) LC 2 4
VESPERTILIONIDAE House, pipistrelle, serotine & related bats Miniopterus natalensis Natal / Shreiber's Long-fingered Bat
LC (U) LC 2 3
Neoromicia capensis Cape Serotine
LC (S) LC 2 2
Pipistrellus rusticus Rusty Pipistrelle
LC (U) LC 3 4
Scotophilus dinganii Yellow-bellied House Bat
LC (U) LC 2 3
Scotophilus viridis Green House Bat
LC (U) LC 3 3
VIVERRIDAE Civet & genets Genetta genetta Common Genet
LC (S) LC 2 3
Genetta maculata Common Large- / Rusty-spotted Genet
LC(U) LC 2 2 Status: D = Declining; EN = Endangered; LC = Least Concern; NT = Near Threatened; PG = Protected Game; PS = Protected Species; PWA = Protected Wild Animal; S = Stable; U = Unknown; VU = Vulnerable
Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO): 1 = Present; 2 = High; 3 = Moderate; 4 = Low
Sources: Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (1983); NEM:BA ToPS (2015); IUCN (2016); MammalMAP (2016); SANBI & EWT (2016)
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 75
13.3. Bird list for the study area
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Apalis thoracica Apalis, Bar-throated
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Recurvirostra avosetta Avocet, Pied
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Turdoides jardineii Babbler, Arrow-marked
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Turdoides bicolor Babbler, Southern Pied
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Tricholaema leucomelas Barbet, Acacia Pied
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Lybius torquatus Barbet, Black-collared
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Trachyphonus vaillantii Barbet, Crested
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Batis molitor Batis, Chinspot
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Merops persicus Bee-eater, Blue-cheeked
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Merops apiaster Bee-eater, European
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Merops pusillus Bee-eater, Little
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Merops nubicoides Bee-eater, Southern Carmine
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Merops hirundineus Bee-eater, Swallow-tailed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Merops bullockoides Bee-eater, White-fronted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Euplectes orix Bishop, Southern Red
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 4
Euplectes capensis Bishop, Yellow
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Euplectes afer Bishop, Yellow-crowned
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Ixobrychus sturmii Bittern, Dwarf
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Botaurus stellaris Bittern, Eurasian
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Ixobrychus minutus Bittern, Little
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Telophorus zeylonus Bokmakierie
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Laniarius ferrugineus Boubou, Southern
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Nilaus afer Brubru
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Pycnonotus nigricans Bulbul, African Red-eyed
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1
3
Pycnonotus tricolor Bulbul, Dark-capped
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 1
Emberiza capensis Bunting, Cape
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Emberiza tahapisi Bunting, Cinnamon-breasted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Emberiza flaviventris Bunting, Golden-breasted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Emberiza impetuani Bunting, Lark-like
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Malaconotus blanchoti Bush-shrike, Grey-headed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
1
Telophorus sulfureopectus Bush-shrike, Orange-breasted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Neotis denhami Bustard, Denham‟s VU PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT VU 1
4
Turnix sylvaticus Buttonquail, Common (Kurrichane)
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 76
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Buteo vulpinus Buzzard, Common (Steppe )
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Pernis apivorus Buzzard, European Honey
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Buteo rufofuscus Buzzard, Jackal
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Kaupifalco monogrammicus Buzzard, Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Camaroptera brevicaudata Camaroptera, Grey-backed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Crithagra atrogularis Canary, Black-throated
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Crithagra flaviventris Canary, Yellow
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Crithagra mozambicus Canary, Yellow-fronted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Myrmecocichla formicivora Chat, Ant-eating
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Cercomela familiaris Chat, Familiar
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2 Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris Chat, Mocking Cliff
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Cisticola textrix Cisticola, Cloud
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Cisticola aridulus Cisticola, Desert
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Cisticola aberrans Cisticola, Lazy
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Cisticola tinniens Cisticola, Levaillant‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Cisticola chiniana Cisticola, Rattling
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Cisticola rufilatus Cisticola, Tinkling
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Cisticola ayresii Cisticola, Wing-snapping
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
1
Cisticola juncidis Cisticola, Zitting
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Fulica cristata Coot, Red-knobbed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Phalacrocorax africanus Cormorant, Reed
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 4
Phalacrocorax carbo Cormorant, White-breasted
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 4
Centropus burchellii Coucal, Burchell‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Rhinoptilus chalcopterus Courser, Bronze-winged
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Cursorius temminckii Courser, Temminck‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Crecopsis egregia Crake, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Porzana pusilla Crake, Baillon‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Amaurornis flavirostris Crake, Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Crex crex Crake, Corn
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Porzana porzana Crake, Spotted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Anthropoides paradiseus Crane, Blue PS PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) VU NT 1
4
Sylvietta rufescens Crombec, Long-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Corvus capensis Crow, Cape
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 3
Corvus albus Crow, Pied
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 1
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 77
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Cuculus gularis Cuckoo, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Cuculus clamosus Cuckoo, Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Cuculus canorus Cuckoo, Common
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Chrysococcyx caprius Cuckoo, Diederik
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Clamator glandarius Cuckoo, Great Spotted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Clamator jacobinus Cuckoo, Jacobin
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Chrysococcyx klaas Cuckoo, Klaas‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Clamator levaillantii Cuckoo, Levaillant‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Cuculus solitarius Cuckoo, Red-chested
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Campephaga flava Cuckooshrike, Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Anhinga rufa Darter, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Streptopelia capicola Dove, Cape Turtle
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 1
Turtur chalcospilos Dove, Emerald-spotted Wood
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Streptopelia senegalensis Dove, Laughing
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 1
Oena capensis Dove, Namaqua
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Streptopelia semitorquata Dove, Red-eyed
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 3
Columba livia Dove, Rock
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Dicrurus adsimilis Drongo, Fork-tailed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Anas sparsa Duck, African Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Dendrocygna bicolor Duck, Fulvous Whistling
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Sarkidiornis melanotos Duck, Knob-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Oxyura maccoa Duck, Maccoa
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT NT 1
4
Thalassornis leuconotus Duck, White-backed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Dendrocygna viduata Duck, White-faced Whistling
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Anas undulata Duck, Yellow-billed
OG Schedule 3 Section 15(1)(b) LC LC 1 1 4
Haliaeetus vocifer Eagle, African Fish
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Aquila spilogaster Eagle, African Hawk
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Hieraaetus ayresii Eagle, Ayres‟s Hawk
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Circaetus pectoralis Eagle, Black-chested Snake
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Hieraaetus pennatus Eagle, Booted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Circaetus cinereus Eagle, Brown Snake
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Lophaetus occipitalis Eagle, Long-crested
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Polemaetus bellicosus Eagle, Martial EN PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) VU EN 1
3
Aquila nipalensis Eagle, Steppe
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) EN LC 1
3
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 78
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Aquila rapax Eagle, Tawny EN PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC EN 1
3
Aquila verreauxii Eagle, Verreauxs'
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC VU 1
4
Aquila wahlbergi Eagle, Wahlberg‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Egretta alba Egret, Great
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Egretta garzetta Egret, Little
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Bubulcus ibis Egret, Western Cattle
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Egretta intermedia Egret, Yellow-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Eremomela usticollis Eremomela, Burnt-necked
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Eremomela scotops Eremomela, Green-capped
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Eremomela icteropygialis Eremomela, Yellow-bellied
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Falco amurensis Falcon, Amur
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Falco biarmicus Falcon, Lanner
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC VU 1 1 3
Falco vespertinus Falcon, Red-footed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT NT 1
2
Anomalospiza imberbis Finch, Cuckoo
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Amadina fasciata Finch, Cut-throat
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Amadina erythrocephala Finch, Red-headed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Sporopipes squamifrons Finch, Scaly-feathered
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Podica senegalensis Finfoot, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC VU 1
4
Lagonosticta rubricata Firefinch, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Lagonosticta rhodopareia Firefinch, Jameson‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Lagonosticta senegala Firefinch, Red-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Lanius collaris Fiscal, Southern (Common)
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Phoenicopterus roseus Flamingo, Greater
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC NT 1
4
Phoeniconaias minor Flamingo, Lesser
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT NT 1
4
Sarothrura rufa Flufftail, Red-chested
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Terpsiphone viridis Flycatcher, African Paradise
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Stenostira scita Flycatcher, Fairy
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Sigelus silens Flycatcher, Fiscal
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Myioparus plumbeus Flycatcher, Grey Tit-
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Bradornis mariquensis Flycatcher, Marico
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Bradornis pallidus Flycatcher, Pale
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Melaenornis pammelaina Flycatcher, Southern Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Muscicapa striata Flycatcher, Spotted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Peliperdix coqui Francolin, Coqui
OG Schedule 3 Section 15(1)(b) LC LC 1 1 4
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 79
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Dendroperdix sephaena Francolin, Crested
OG Schedule 3 Section 15(1)(b) LC LC 1 1 2
Scleroptila levaillantii Francolin, Red-winged
OG Schedule 3 Section 15(1)(b) LC LC 1
4
Scleroptila shelleyi Francolin, Shelley‟s
OG Schedule 3 Section 15(1)(b) LC LC 1
4
Corythaixoides concolor Go-away-bird, Grey
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Limosa limosa Godwit, Black-tailed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT NA 1
4
Alopochen aegyptiacus Goose, Egyptian
OG Schedule 3 Section 15(1)(b) LC LC 1 1 3
Plectropterus gambensis Goose, Spur-winged
OG Schedule 3 Section 15(1)(b) LC LC 1 1 4
Melierax gabar Goshawk, Gabar
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Melierax canorus Goshawk, Pale Chanting
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Sphenoeacus afer Grassbird, Cape
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Podiceps nigricollis Grebe, Black-necked
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Podiceps cristatus Grebe, Great Crested
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Tachybaptus ruficollis Grebe, Little
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Tringa nebularia Greenshank, Common
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Numida meleagris Guineafowl, Helmeted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1 Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus Gull, Grey-headed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Scopus umbretta Hamerkop
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Circus ranivorus Harrier, African Marsh
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC EN 1
4
Circus pygargus Harrier, Montagu‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Circus macrourus Harrier, Pallid
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT NT 1
4
Aviceda cuculoides Hawk, African Cuckoo
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Polyboroides typus Hawk, African Harrier-
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Prionops plumatus Helmet-shrike, White-crested
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Egretta ardesiaca Heron, Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Nycticorax nycticorax Heron, Black-crowned Night
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Ardea melanocephala Heron, Black-headed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Ardea goliath Heron, Goliath
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Butorides striata Heron, Green-backed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Ardea cinerea Heron, Grey
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Ardea purpurea Heron, Purple
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Ardeola ralloides Heron, Squacco
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Gorsachius leuconotus Heron, White-backed Night
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC VU 1
4
Falco subbuteo Hobby, Eurasian
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Prodotiscus regulus Honeybird, Brown-backed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 80
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Indicator indicator Honeyguide, Greater
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Indicator minor Honeyguide, Lesser
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Upupa africana Hoopoe, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Tockus nasutus Hornbill, African Grey
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Tockus erythrorhynchus Hornbill, Southern Red-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Tockus leucomelas Hornbill, Southern Yellow-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Threskiornis aethiopicus Ibis, African Sacred
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Plegadis falcinellus Ibis, Glossy
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Bostrychia hagedash Ibis, Hadeda
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Vidua funerea Indigobird, Dusky
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Vidua purpurascens Indigobird, Purple
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Vidua chalybeata Indigobird, Village
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Actophilornis africanus Jacana, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Falco rupicoloides Kestrel, Greater
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Falco naumanni Kestrel, Lesser
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Falco rupicolus Kestrel, Rock
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Ispidina picta Kingfisher, African Pygmy
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Halcyon albiventris Kingfisher, Brown-hooded
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Megaceryle maximus Kingfisher, Giant
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Halcyon leucocephala Kingfisher, Grey-headed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Alcedo semitorquata Kingfisher, Half-collared
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC NT 1
4
Alcedo cristata Kingfisher, Malachite
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Ceryle rudis Kingfisher, Pied
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Halcyon chelicuti Kingfisher, Striped
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Halcyon senegalensis Kingfisher, Woodland
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Milvus migrans Kite, Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Elanus caeruleus Kite, Black-shouldered
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Milvus aegyptius Kite, Yellow-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Afrotis afraoides Korhaan, Northern Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Lophotis ruficrista Korhaan, Red-crested
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Eupodotis senegalensis Korhaan, White-bellied
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC VU 1
4
Vanellus senegallus Lapwing, African Wattled
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Vanellus armatus Lapwing, Blacksmith
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Vanellus coronatus Lapwing, Crowned
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 81
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Mirafra apiata Lark, Cape Clapper
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Eremopterix leucotis Lark, Chestnut-backed Sparrow-
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Pinarocorys nigricans Lark, Dusky
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Mirafra fasciolata Lark, Eastern Clapper
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Certhilauda semitorquata Lark, Eastern Long-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Calendulauda africanoides Lark, Fawn-coloured
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Mirafra rufocinnamomea Lark, Flappet
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Mirafra cheniana Lark, Melodious
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT LC 1
4
Mirafra passerina Lark, Monotonous
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Spizocorys conirostris Lark, Pink-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Calandrella cinerea Lark, Red-capped
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Mirafra africana Lark, Rufous-naped
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Calendulauda sabota Lark, Sabota
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Macronyx capensis Longclaw, Cape
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Spermestes cucullatus Mannikin, Bronze
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Riparia cincta Martin, Banded
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Riparia paludicola Martin, Brown-throated
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Delichon urbicum Martin, Common House
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Hirundo fuligula Martin, Rock
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Riparia riparia Martin, Sand
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Gallinula chloropus Moorhen, Common
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Urocolius indicus Mousebird, Red-faced
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 1
Colius striatus Mousebird, Speckled
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 2
Colius colius Mousebird, White-backed
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 2
Acridotheres tristis Myna, Common
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a)
1 1 3
Cisticola fulvicapilla Neddicky
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Caprimulgus europaeus Nightjar, European
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Caprimulgus pectoralis Nightjar, Fiery-necked
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Caprimulgus tristigma Nightjar, Freckled
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Caprimulgus rufigena Nightjar, Rufous-cheeked
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Oriolus larvatus Oriole, Black-headed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Oriolus oriolus Oriole, Eurasian Golden
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Pandion haliaetus Osprey, Western
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Struthio camelus Ostrich, Common
LC LC 1 1 4
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 82
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Tyto capensis Owl, African Grass
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC VU 1
4
Otus senegalensis Owl, African Scops
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Bubo capensis Owl, Cape Eagle-
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Asio capensis Owl, Marsh
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Ptilopsis granti Owl, Southern White-faced
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Bubo africanus Owl, Spotted Eagle-
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
1
Bubo lacteus Owl, Verreaux‟s Eagle-
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Tyto alba Owl, Western Barn
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Glaucidium perlatum Owlet, Pearl-spotted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Buphagus erythrorynchus Oxpecker, Red-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Rostratula benghalensis Painted-snipe, Greater
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC NT 1
4
Psittacula krameri Parakeet, Rose-ringed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a)
1
4
Poicephalus meyeri Parrot, Meyer‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Pelecanus onocrotalus Pelican, Great White
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC VU 1
4
Pelecanus rufescens Pelican, Pink-backed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC VU 1
4
Anthoscopus minutus Penduline-tit, Cape
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Anthoscopus caroli Penduline-tit, Grey
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Petronia superciliaris Petronia, Yellow-throated
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Treron calvus Pigeon, African Green
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Columba guinea Pigeon, Speckled
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Anthus cinnamomeus Pipit, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Anthus vaalensis Pipit, Buffy
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Anthus caffer Pipit, Bushveld
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Anthus similis Pipit, Long-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Anthus leucophrys Pipit, Plain-backed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Anthus lineiventris Pipit, Striped
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Anthus trivialis Pipit, Tree
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Charadrius asiaticus Plover, Caspian
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Charadrius hiaticula Plover, Common Ringed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Charadrius pecuarius Plover, Kittlitz‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Charadrius tricollaris Plover, Three-banded
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Netta erythrophthalma Pochard, Southern
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Glareola nordmanni Pratincole, Black-winged
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT NT 1
4
Prinia flavicans Prinia, Black-chested
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 83
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Prinia subflava Prinia, Tawny-flanked
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Dryoscopus cubla Puffback, Black-backed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Pytilia melba Pytilia, Green-winged
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Ortygospiza atricollis Quail-finch, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Coturnix coturnix Quail, Common
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Coturnix delegorguei Quail, Harlequin
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Quelea quelea Quelea, Red-billed
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 2
Rallus caerulescens Rail, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Cossypha caffra Robin-chat, Cape
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Cossypha humeralis Robin-chat, White-throated
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Cercotrichas paena Robin, Kalahari Scrub
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Cercotrichas leucophrys Robin, White-browed Scrub
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Coracias garrulus Roller, European
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC NT 1
2
Coracias caudatus Roller, Lilac-breasted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Coracias naevius Roller, Purple
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Philomachus pugnax Ruff
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Pterocles bicinctus Sandgrouse, Double-banded
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Pterocles gutturalis Sandgrouse, Yellow-throated
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC NT 1
3
Actitis hypoleucos Sandpiper, Common
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Calidris ferruginea Sandpiper, Curlew
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) NT LC 1
4
Tringa ochropus Sandpiper, Green
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a)
1
4
Tringa stagnatilis Sandpiper, Marsh
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Tringa glareola Sandpiper, Wood
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Rhinopomastus cyanomelas Scimitarbill, Common
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) VU VU 1
3
Crithagra gularis Seedeater, Streaky-headed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Tadorna cana Shelduck, South African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Accipiter badius Shikra
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Anas smithii Shoveler, Cape
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Laniarius atrococcineus Shrike, Crimson-breasted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Lanius minor Shrike, Lesser Grey
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Corvinella melanoleuca Shrike, Magpie
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Lanius collurio Shrike, Red-backed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Eurocephalus anguitimens Shrike, Southern White-crowned
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 84
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Gallinago nigripennis Snipe, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Plocepasser mahali Sparrow-weaver, White-browed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Passer melanurus Sparrow, Cape
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 1
Passer motitensis Sparrow, Great
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Passer domesticus Sparrow, House
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a)
1 1 3
Passer diffusus Sparrow, Southern Grey-headed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Accipiter melanoleucus Sparrowhawk, Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Accipiter minullus Sparrowhawk, Little
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Accipiter ovampensis Sparrowhawk, Ovambo
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Platalea alba Spoonbill, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Pternistis natalensis Spurfowl, Natal
OG Schedule 3 Section 15(1)(b) LC LC 1 1 3
Pternistis swainsonii Spurfowl, Swainson‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Lamprotornis australis Starling, Burchell‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Lamprotornis nitens Starling, Cape Glossy
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Lamprotornis bicolor Starling, Pied
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Onychognathus morio Starling, Red-winged
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 4
Cinnyricinclus leucogaster Starling, Violet-backed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Creatophora cinerea Starling, Wattled
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Himantopus himantopus Stilt, Black-winged
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Calidris minuta Stint, Little
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Saxicola torquatus Stonechat, African
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Ciconia abdimii Stork, Abdim‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC NT 1 1 3
Ciconia nigra Stork, Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC VU 1
4
Leptoptilos crumeniferus Stork, Marabou
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC NT 1
3
Ciconia ciconia Stork, White
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Mycteria ibis Stork, Yellow-billed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC EN 1
4
Chalcomitra amethystina Sunbird, Amethyst
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Cinnyris afer Sunbird, Greater Double-collared
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Nectarinia famosa Sunbird, Malachite
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Cinnyris mariquensis Sunbird, Marico
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Cinnyris talatala Sunbird, White-bellied
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Hirundo rustica Swallow, Barn
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Hirundo cucullata Swallow, Greater Striped
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Hirundo abyssinica Swallow, Lesser Striped
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 85
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Hirundo dimidiata Swallow, Pearl-breasted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Hirundo semirufa Swallow, Red-breasted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Hirundo spilodera Swallow, South African Cliff
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Hirundo albigularis Swallow, White-throated
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Porphyrio madagascariensis Swamphen, African (Purple)
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Apus barbatus Swift, African Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Cypsiurus parvus Swift, African Palm
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Tachymarptis melba Swift, Alpine
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Apus apus Swift, Common
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Apus horus Swift, Horus
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Apus affinis Swift, Little
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Apus caffer Swift, White-rumped
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Tchagra senegalus Tchagra, Black-crowned
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Tchagra australis Tchagra, Brown-crowned
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Anas capensis Teal, Cape
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Anas hottentota Teal, Hottentot
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Anas erythrorhyncha Teal, Red-billed
OG Schedule 3 Section 15(1)(b) LC LC 1 1 4
Chlidonias hybrida Tern, Whiskered
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Chlidonias leucopterus Tern, White-winged
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Burhinus capensis Thick-knee, Spotted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Monticola rupestris Thrush, Cape Rock
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Psophocichla litsipsirupa Thrush, Groundscraper
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Turdus smithi Thrush, Karoo
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Turdus libonyanus Thrush, Kurrichane
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Turdus olivaceus Thrush, Olive
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Monticola brevipes Thrush, Short-toed Rock
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Pogoniulus chrysoconus Tinkerbird, Yellow-fronted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Parisoma subcaeruleum Tit-Babbler, Chestnut-vented
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Parus cinerascens Tit, Ashy
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Parus niger Tit, Southern Black
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Gyps coprotheres Vulture, Cape EN PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) EN EN 1 1 3
Torgos tracheliotos Vulture, Lappet-faced EN PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) EN EN 1
3
Gyps africanus Vulture, White-backed EN PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) CR CR 1
3
Motacilla aguimp Wagtail, African Pied
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 86
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Motacilla capensis Wagtail, Cape
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Motacilla flava Wagtail, Western Yellow
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Acrocephalus baeticatus Warbler, African Reed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Calamonastes fasciolatus Warbler, Barred Wren-
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Sylvia borin Warbler, Garden
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Acrocephalus arundinaceus Warbler, Great Reed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Hippolais icterina Warbler, Icterine
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Acrocephalus gracilirostris Warbler, Lesser Swamp
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Bradypterus baboecala Warbler, Little Rush
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Acrocephalus palustris Warbler, Marsh
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Hippolais olivetorum Warbler, Olive-tree
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Warbler, Sedge
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Phylloscopus trochilus Warbler, Willow
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Estrilda erythronotos Waxbill, Black-faced
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Uraeginthus angolensis Waxbill, Blue
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Estrilda astrild Waxbill, Common
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Amandava subflava Waxbill, Orange-breasted
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Granatina granatina Waxbill, Violet-eared
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Ploceus capensis Weaver, Cape
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1
4
Ploceus intermedius Weaver, Lesser Masked
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Bubalornis niger Weaver, Red-billed Buffalo
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Anaplectes rubriceps Weaver, Red-headed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Ploceus velatus Weaver, Southern Masked
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 1
Ploceus cucullatus Weaver, Village
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 LC LC 1 1 3
Oenanthe pileata Wheatear, Capped
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Oenanthe monticola Wheatear, Mountain
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
Zosterops virens White-eye, Cape
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Zosterops pallidus White-eye, Orange River
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Sylvia communis Whitethroat, Common
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
3
Vidua paradisaea Whydah, Long-tailed Paradise
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Vidua macroura Whydah, Pin-tailed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Vidua regia Whydah, Shaft-tailed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 1
Euplectes progne Widowbird, Long-tailed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Euplectes ardens Widowbird, Red-collared
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 87
SCIENTIFIC NAME ALPHABETICAL COMMON NAME
RSA LEGAL
STATUS NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
REGIONAL RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS PENTAD SITE
Euplectes albonotatus Widowbird, White-winged
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Phoeniculus purpureus Wood-hoopoe, Green
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Dendropicos namaquus Woodpecker, Bearded
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 3
Campethera bennettii Woodpecker, Bennett‟s
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 4
Dendropicos fuscescens Woodpecker, Cardinal
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1 1 2
Campethera abingoni Woodpecker, Golden-tailed
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
2
Jynx ruficollis Wryneck, Red-throated
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC LC 1
4 Status: CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; LC = Least Concern; NT = Near Threatened; PG = Protected Game; PS = Protected Species; VU = Vulnerable; WA = Wild Animal
Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO): 1 = Present; 2 = High; 3 = Moderate; 4 = Low
Sources: Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (1983); Roberts VII (2013); NEM:BA ToPS (2015); Taylor et al. (2015); SABAP 2 (2016)
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 88
13.4. Reptile list for the study area
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RSA
LEGAL STATUS
NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS SITE
AGAMIDAE Agamas Acanthocercus atricollis atricollis Southern Tree Agama
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 2 3
Agama aculeata distanti Distant's Ground Agama
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 2 3
Agama atra Southern Rock Agama
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 2 4
AMPHISBAENIDAE Worm lizards Monopeltis infuscata Dusky Worm Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 3 3
CHAMAELEONIDAE Chameleons Chamaeleo dilepis dilepis Common Flap-neck Chameleon
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC* 2 2
COLUBRIDAE Typical snakes Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-lipped Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 1 2
Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 2
Dispholidus typus typus Boomslang
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC* 2 2
Philothamnus hoplogaster South Eastern Green Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 4
Philothamnus natalensis occidentalis Western Natal Green Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 3 4
Philothamnus semivariegatus Spotted Bush Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 2
Telescopus semiannulatus semiannulatus Eastern Tiger Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 2
Thelotornis capensis capensis Southern Twig Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 3 2
CORDYLIDAE Crag, flat & girdled lizards Cordylus jonesii Jones' Girdled Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 3 4
Cordylus vittifer Common Girdled Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 2 4
ELAPIDAE Cobras, mambas & relatives Aspidelaps scutatus scutatus Speckled Shield Cobra
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 3 3
Elapsoidea sundevallii sundevallii Sundevall's Garter Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC* 3 3
Naja annulifera Snouted Cobra
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 2
Naja mossambica Mozambique Spitting Cobra
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 2
GEKKONIDAE Geckos Chondrodactylus turneri Turner's Gecko
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 2 4
Hemidactylus mabouia Common Tropical House Gecko
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 3 2
Lygodactylus capensis capensis Common Dwarf Gecko
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 1 1
Lygodactylus (ocellatus) ocellatus Spotted Dwarf Gecko
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 3 4
Pachydactylus affinis Transvaal Gecko
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 2 3
Pachydactylus capensis Cape Gecko
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 2 2
GERRHOSAURIDAE Plated lizards & seps
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 89
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RSA
LEGAL STATUS
NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS SITE
Gerrhosaurus flavigularis Yellow-throated Plated Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 1 2
LACERTIDAE Typical lizards Ichnotropis capensis Ornate Rough-scaled Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 3 3
Meroles squamulosus Common Rough-scaled Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 2 3
Nucras holubi Holub's Sandveld Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 2 3
Nucras intertexta Spotted Sandveld Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 1 3
Nucras lalandii Delalande's Sandveld Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 3 4
Nucras ornata Ornate Sandveld Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 3 3
Pedioplanis lineoocellata lineoocellata Spotted Sand Lizard
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 3 3
LAMPROPHIIDAE Lamprophid snakes Aparallactus capensis Black-headed Centipede-eater
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 1 2
Atractaspis bibronii Bibron's Stiletto Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 3 3
Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 2
Duberria lutrix lutrix South African Slug-eater
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 3 3
Gonionotophis capensis capensis Common File Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 3 2
Gonionotophis nyassae Black File Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 3 2
Homoroselaps dorsalis Striped Harlequin Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1NT 3 3
Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 3 4
Lycodonomorphus inornatus Olive House Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 3 3
Lycodonomorphus rufulus Brown Water Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 3 3
Lycophidion capense capense Cape Wolf Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 2
Prosymna bivittata Two-striped Shovel-snout
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 3 2
Prosymna sundevallii Sundevall's Shovel-snout
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 3 3
Psammophis angolensis Dwarf Sand Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 3 4
Psammophis brevirostris Short-snouted Grass Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 2 3
Psammophis subtaeniatus Western Yellow-bellied Sand Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 3 2
Psammophis trinasalis Fork-marked Sand Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 3 2
Psammophylax tritaeniatus Striped Grass Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 2
Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 2
LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE Thread snakes Leptotyphlops distanti Distant's Thread Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 2 2
Leptotyphlops incognitus Incognito Thread Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 3 2
Leptotyphlops scutifrons conjunctus Eastern Thread Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC* 3 3
Leptotyphlops scutifrons scutifrons Peters' Thread Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC* 2 2
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 90
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RSA
LEGAL STATUS
NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS RED LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS SITE
PELOMEDUSIDAE Terrapins Pelomedusa galeata South African Marsh Terrapin
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a)
2 4
Pelusios sinuatus Serrated Hinged Terrapin
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 3 4
PYTHONIDAE Python Python natalensis Southern African Python PS WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 3
SCINCIDAE Skinks Acontias occidentalis Western Legless Skink
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 3 3
Afroablepharus wahlbergii Wahlberg's Snake-eyed Skink
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 2 3
Mochlus (sundevallii) sundevallii Sundevall's Writhing Skink
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 1 2
Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 2 2
Trachylepis punctatissima Speckled Rock Skink
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 1 1
Trachylepis varia Variable Skink
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 1 2
TESTUDINIDAE Tortoises Kinixys lobatsiana Lobatse Hinged Tortoise
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 2 3
Kinixys spekii Speke's Hinged Tortoise
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 2LC 3 3
Psammobates oculifer Serrated Tent Tortoise
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 3 3
Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise
PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) 1LC 2 3
TYPHLOPIDAE Blind snakes Afrotyphlops bibronii Bibron's Blind Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 1LC 2 2
Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande's Beaked Blind Snake
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 2 3
VARANIDAE Monitors Varanus albigularis albigularis Rock Monitor
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 1 4
Varanus niloticus Water Monitor
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 1 4
VIPERIDAE Adders Bitis arietans arietans Puff Adder
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 1 2
Bitis caudalis Horned Adder WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 3 3
Causus rhombeatus Rhombic Night Adder
WA Schedule 5 Section 43 2LC 3 2 Status: 1 = Global; 2 = Regional; LC = Least Concern; NT = Near Threatened; PG = Protected Game; PS = Protected Species; WA = Wild Animal
Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO): 1 = Present; 2 = High; 3 = Moderate; 4 = Low
Sources: Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (1983); Bates et al. (2014); NEM:BA ToPS (2015); ReptileMAP (2016)
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 91
13.5. Frog list for the study area
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS GLOBAL RED LIST
STATUS REGIONAL RED
LIST STATUS
LoO
QDS SITE
BREVICIPITIDAE Rain frogs
Breviceps adspersus adspersus Bushveld Rain Frog
LC (U)* LC 2 2
BUFONIDAE True toads
Poyntonophrynus fenoulheti Northern Pygmy Toad
LC (U) LC 3 4
Poyntonophrynus vertebralis Southern Pygmy Toad
LC (U) LC 3 4
Schismaderma carens Red Toad
LC (U) LC 1 3
Sclerophrys garmani Olive Toad
LC (U) LC 2 3
Sclerophrys gutturalis Guttural Toad
LC (I) LC 2 2
Sclerophrys poweri Power's Toad
LC (U) LC 3 2
HYPEROLIIDAE Leaf-folding & reed frogs
Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina
LC (U) LC 1 3
MICROHYLIDAE Rubber frogs
Phrynomantis bifasciatus Banded Rubber Frog
LC (U) LC 1 3
PHRYNOBATRACHIDAE Puddle frogs
Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snoring Puddle Frog
LC (S) LC 1 3
PIPIDAE African clawed frogs
Xenopus laevis Common Platanna
LC (I) LC 2 4
PTYCHADENIDAE Grass frogs
Ptychadena anchietae Plain Grass Frog
LC (U) LC 1 3
Ptychadena mossambica Broad-banded Grass Frog
LC (U) LC 3 3
Ptychadena porosissima Striped Grass Frog
LC (U) LC 3 4
PYXICEPHALIDAE Moss, river, sand & stream frogs
Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog
LC (S) LC 3 4
Amietia quecketti Queckett's River Frog
LC (S) LC 1 4
Cacosternum boettgeri Common Caco
LC (U) LC 1 3
Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog PG Schedule 2 Section 15(1)(a) LC (D) NT 2 3
Pyxicephalus edulis African Bullfrog
LC (U) LC 3 3
Strongylopus fasciatus Striped Stream Frog
LC (U) LC 3 4
Tomopterna cryptotis Tremolo Sand Frog
LC (S) LC 2 3
Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog
LC (U) LC 2 3
RHACOPHORIDAE Foam Nest Frog
Chiromantis xerampelina Southern Foam Nest Frog
LC (U) LC 3 4 Status: D = Declining; LC = Least Concern; NT = Near Threatened; PG = Protected Game; S = Stable; U = Unknown
Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO): 1 = Present; 2 = High; 3 = Moderate; 4 = Low
Sources: Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (1983); Minter et al. (2004); NEM:BA ToPS (2015); FrogMAP (2016); IUCN (2016)
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 92
13.6. Butterfly list for the study area
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS RED LIST STATUS LoO QDS
HESPERIIDAE Sandmen, skippers, sylphs & relatives Abantis tettensis Spotted Velvet Skipper
1LC 2
Borbo fallax False Swift
1LC 3
Borbo holtzi Variable Swift
1LC 3
Caprona pillaana Ragged Skipper
1LC 2
Coeliades forestan forestan Striped Policeman
1LC 3
Coeliades pisistratus Two-pip Policeman
1LC 2
Eretis umbra umbra Small Marbled Elf
1LC End 3
Gegenes niso niso Common Hottentot
1LC 1
Gegenes pumilio gambica Dark Hottentot
1LC 2
Gomalia elma elma Green-marbled Skipper
2
Kedestes barberae barberae Barber's Ranger
1LC 3
Kedestes callicles Pale Ranger
LC 2
Kedestes lepenula Chequered Ranger
1LC 2
Kedestes macomo Macomo Ranger
1LC 3
Kedestes nerva nerva Scarce Ranger
1LC End 3
Leucochitonea levubu White-cloaked Skipper
1LC 2
Metisella malgacha malgacha Grassveld Sylph
1LC End 3
Metisella meninx Marsh Sylph
1LC Rare Habitat Specialist 3
Metisella willemi Netted Sylph
1LC 2
Parosmodes morantii morantii Morant's Orange
1LC 3
Pelopidas mathias Black-banded Swift
1LC 2
Pelopidas thrax White-banded Swift
1LC 3
Platylesches ayresii Peppered Hopper
1LC 2
Platylesches neba Flower-girl Hopper
1LC 2
Sarangesa motozi Elfin Skipper
1LC 2
Sarangesa phidyle Small Elfin
1LC 1
Sarangesa seineri seineri Dark Elfin
1LC 3
Spialia asterodia Star Sandman
1LC 3
Spialia colotes transvaaliae Bushveld Sandman
1LC 2
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 93
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS RED LIST STATUS LoO QDS
Spialia delagoae Delagoa Sandman
1LC 2
Spialia depauperata australis Wandering Sandman
1LC 3
Spialia diomus ferax Common Sandman
1LC 1
Spialia dromus Forest Sandman
1LC 3
Spialia mafa mafa Mafa Sandman
1LC 3
Spialia paula Mite Sandman
1LC 3
Spialia spio Mountain Sandman
1LC 2
Tsitana tsita Dismal Sylph
1LC 3
LYCAENIDAE Blues, coppers, opals & relatives Actizera lucida Rayed Blue
1LC 2
Alaena amazoula ochroma Yellow Zulu
1LC 2
Aloeides aranda Aranda Copper
1LC 3
Aloeides damarensis damarensis Damara Copper
1LC 2
Aloeides henningi Henning's Copper
1LC End 3
Aloeides molomo molomo Molomo Copper
1LC End 3
Aloeides taikosama Dusky Copper
1LC 1
Aloeides trimeni trimeni Trimen's Copper
1LC 3
Anthene amarah amarah Black Striped Hairtail
1LC 1
Anthene definita definita Common Hairtail
1LC 2
Anthene dulcis dulcis Mashuna Hairtail
1LC 2
Anthene livida livida Pale Hairtail
1LC 2
Anthene millari Millar's Hairtail
1LC 3
Anthene otacilia otacilia Otacilia Hairtail
1LC 1
Anthene princeps Lebombo Hairtail
1LC 3
Anthene talboti Talbot's Hairtail
1LC 3
Aphnaeus hutchinsonii Hutchinson's Highflier
1LC 3
Axiocerses amanga amanga Bush Scarlet
1LC 2
Axiocerses coalescens Black-tipped Scarlet
1LC 3
Axiocerses tjoane tjoane Eastern Scarlet
1LC 2
Azanus jesous Topaz Babul Blue
1LC 1
Azanus mirza Pale Babul Blue
1LC End 3
Azanus moriqua Black-bordered Babul Blue
1LC 1
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 94
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS RED LIST STATUS LoO QDS
Azanus natalensis Natal Babul Blue
1LC 3
Azanus ubaldus Velvet-spotted Babul Blue
1LC 2
Cacyreus marshalli Common Geranium Bronze
1LC 2
Cacyreus virilis Mocker Bronze
1LC 2
Chilades trochylus Grass Jewel
1LC 1
Cigaritis ella Ella's Bar
1LC 1
Cigaritis mozambica Mozambique Bar
1LC 3
Cigaritis natalensis Natal Bar
1LC 2
Cigaritis phanes Silvery Bar
1LC 2
Cnodontes penningtoni Pennington's Buff
1LC 2
Crudaria leroma Silver Spotted Grey
1LC 2
Cupidopsis cissus cissus Common Meadow Blue
1LC 3
Cupidopsis jobates jobates Tailed Meadow Blue
1LC 2
Eicochrysops messapus mahallakoaena Cupreous Blue
1LC 1
Euchrysops barkeri Barker's Smoky Blue
1LC 3
Euchrysops dolorosa Sabie Smoky Blue
1LC 3
Euchrysops malathana Common Smoky Blue
1LC 2
Euchrysops osiris Osiris Smoky Blue
1LC 3
Euchrysops subpallida Ashen Smoky Blue
1LC 3
Hypolycaena philippus philippus Purplebrown Hairstreak
1LC 2
Iolaus alienus alienus Brown-line Sapphire
1LC 3
Iolaus mimosae rhodosense Mimosa Sapphire
1LC 3
Iolaus pallene Saffron Sapphire
1LC 2
Iolaus trimeni Trimen's Sapphire
1LC 1
Lachnocnema bibulus Common Woolly Legs
1LC 2
Lachnocnema durbani D'Urban's Woolly Legs
1LC 3
Lachnocnema laches Southern Pied Woolly Legs
1LC 3
Lampides boeticus Pea Blue
1LC 1
Lepidochrysops glauca Silvery Blue
1LC 2
Lepidochrysops ignota Zulu Blue
1LC End 3
Lepidochrysops patricia Patricia Blue
1LC 2
Lepidochrysops plebeia plebeia Twin-spot Blue
1LC 2
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 95
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS RED LIST STATUS LoO QDS
Leptomyrina henningi henningi Henning's Black-eye
1LC 2
Leptotes babaulti Babault's Zebra Blue
1LC End 3
Leptotes brevidentatus Short-toothed Zebra Blue
1LC 3
Leptotes jeanneli Jeannel's Zebra Blue
1LC 3
Leptotes pirithous pirithous Common Zebra Blue
1LC 1
Myrina silenus ficedula Common Fig Tree Blue
1LC 3
Oraidium barberae Dwarf Blue
1LC 3
Pseudonacaduba sichela sichela Dusky Line Blue
1LC 2
Stugeta bowkeri tearei Bowker's Marbled Sapphire
1LC 2
Tarucus sybaris sybaris Dotted Blue
1LC 1
Thestor basutus capeneri Basuto Skolly
1LC 3
Tuxentius calice White Pie
1LC 2
Tuxentius melaena melaena Black Pie
1LC 1
Uranothauma nubifer nubifer Black Heart
1LC 2
Virachola antalus Brown Playboy
1LC 1
Virachola dinochares Apricot Playboy
1LC 2
Zintha hintza hintza Hintza Pierrot
1LC 2
Zizeeria knysna knysna African / Sooty Grass Blue
1LC 2
Zizula hylax Tiny / Gaika Grass Blue
1LC 2
NYMPHALIDAE Acraeas, browns, charaxes & relatives Acraea aglaonice Clear-spotted / Window Acraea
1LC 2
Acraea anemosa Broad-bordered Acraea
1LC 2
Acraea axina Little Acraea
1LC 1
Acraea barberi Barber's Acraea
1LC 3
Acraea caldarena caldarena Black-tipped Acraea
1LC 3
Acraea horta Garden Acraea
1LC 2
Acraea lygus Lygus Acraea
1LC 3
Acraea natalica Natal Acraea
1LC 2
Acraea neobule neobule Wandering Donkey Acraea
1LC 2
Acraea nohara nohara Light Red Acraea
1LC 3
Acraea oncaea Window Acraea
1LC 2
Acraea stenobea Suffused Acraea
1LC 3
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 96
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS RED LIST STATUS LoO QDS
Byblia anvatara acheloia Joker
1LC 2
Byblia ilithyia Spotted Joker
1LC 1
Catacroptera cloanthe cloanthe Pirate
1LC 2
Charaxes achaemenes achaemenes Bushveld Charaxes Schedule 7 Section 45 1LC 2
Charaxes brutus natalensis White-barred Charaxes Schedule 7 Section 45 1LC 3
Charaxes candiope Green-veined Charaxes Schedule 7 Section 45 1LC 3
Charaxes jahlusa rex Pearl-spotted Charaxes Schedule 7 Section 45 1LC 2
Charaxes jasius saturnus Foxy Charaxes Schedule 7 Section 45 1LC 1
Charaxes vansoni Van Son's Charaxes Schedule 7 Section 45 1LC 2
Coenyropsis natalii natalii Natal Brown
1LC 1
Danaus chrysippus orientis African Monarch, Plain Tiger
1LC 1
Eurytela dryope angulata Golden Piper
1LC 3
Hamanumida daedalus Guinea-fowl Butterfly
1LC 1
Heteropsis perspicua perspicua Eyed Bush Brown
1LC 2
Hypolimnas misippus Common Diadem
1LC 1
Junonia hierta cebrene Yellow Pansy
1LC 1
Junonia oenone oenone Blue Pansy
1LC 1
Junonia orithya madagascariensis Eyed Pansy
1LC 1
Melanitis leda Twilight Brown
1LC End 3
Neptis saclava marpessa Spotted Sailer
1LC 2
Paternympha narycia Spotted-eye Brown
1LC End 2
Phalanta phalantha aethiopica African Leopard
1LC 2
Physcaeneura panda Dark-webbed Ringlet
1LC 1
Precis antilope Darker Commodore
1LC 3
Precis archesia archesia Garden Commodore
1LC 3
Precis ceryne ceryne Marsh Commodore
1LC 3
Precis octavia sesamus Gaudy Commodore
1LC 3
Stygionympha wichgrafi williami Wichgraf's Hillside Brown
1LC End 3
Telchinia burni Pale-yellow Acraea
1LC 2
Telchinia encedon encedon White-barred Acraea
1LC 2
Telchinia rahira rahira Marsh Acraea
1LC 3
Telchinia serena Dancing Acraea
1LC 1
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 97
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS RED LIST STATUS LoO QDS
Vanessa cardui Painted Lady
1LC 1
Ypthima asterope asterope African Ringlet
1LC 2
Ypthima impura paupera Impure Ringlet
1LC 3
PAPILIONIDAE Swallowtails, swordtails & relatives Graphium antheus Large Striped Swordtail
1LC 3
Graphium morania White Lady
1LC 3
Papilio constantinus constantinus Constantine's Swallowtail
1LC 3
Papilio demodocus demodocus Citrus Swallowtail
1LC 1
Papilio nireus lyaeus Green-banded Swallowtail
1LC 2
PIERIDAE Tips, whites & relatives Belenois aurota Brown-veined White
1LC 1
Belenois creona severina African Common White
1LC 2
Belenois gidica abyssinica African Veined White
1LC 3
Belenois zochalia zochalia Forest White
1LC 3
Catopsilia florella African Migrant
1LC 1
Colias electo electo African Clouded Yellow
1LC 2
Colotis annae annae Scarlet Tip
1LC 3
Colotis antevippe gavisa Red Tip
1LC 2
Colotis euippe omphale Smoky Orange Tip
1LC 1
Colotis evagore antigone Small Orange Tip
1LC 2
Colotis evenina evenina Orange Tip
1LC 2
Colotis ione Bushveld Purple Tip
1LC 3
Colotis pallene Bushveld Orange Tip
1LC 2
Colotis regina Queen Purple Tip
1LC 2
Colotis vesta argillaceus Veined Tip
1LC 2
Eurema brigitta brigitta Broad-bordered Grass Yellow
1LC 1
Eurema hecabe solifera Lowveld / Common Grass Yellow
1LC 3
Mylothris agathina agathina Common Dotted Border
1LC 1
Mylothris rueppellii haemus Twin Dotted Border
1LC 2
Pinacopteryx eriphia eriphia Zebra White
1LC 1
Pontia helice helice Common Meadow White
1LC 2
Teracolus agoye agoye Speckled Sulphur Tip
1LC 2
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 98
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NORTH WEST LEGAL STATUS RED LIST STATUS LoO QDS
Teracolus agoye bowkeri Speckled Sulphur Tip
1LC 3
Teracolus eris eris Banded Gold Tip
1LC 1
Teracolus subfasciatus Lemon Traveller
1LC 2 Status: 1 = Global; 2 = Regional; End = Endemic; LC = Least Concern
Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO): 1 = Present; 2 = High; 3 = Moderate
Sources: Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance (1983); Mecenero et al. (2013); LepiMAP (2016)
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 99
13.7. Odonata list for the study area
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME BIOTIC INDEX SCORE
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
RSA RED LIST STATUS
LoO QDS
AESHNIDAE Hawkers
Anax ephippiger Vagrant Emperor 2
3
Anax imperator Blue Emperor 1
3
CHLOROCYPHIDAE Jewels
Platycypha caligata Dancing Jewel 2
3
COENAGRIONIDAE Pond damsels
Africallagma glaucum Swamp Bluet 1
2
Africallagma sapphirinum Sapphire Bluet 4
3
Azuragrion nigridorsum Sailing Bluet 3
2
Ceriagrion glabrum Common Citril 0
3
Ischnura senegalensis Tropical / Marsh Bluetail 0
2
Pseudagrion citricola Yellow-faced Sprite 3
3
Pseudagrion hageni Painted Sprite 2 or 5
3
Pseudagrion hamoni Swarthy / Drab Sprite 2
3
Pseudagrion kersteni Powder-faced / Kersten's Sprite 1
3
Pseudagrion massaicum Masai Sprite 1
2
Pseudagrion salisburyense Slate Sprite 1
2
GOMPHIDAE Clubtails
Ceratogomphus pictus Common Thorntail 2
2
Paragomphus cognatus Rock / Boulder Hooktail 1
3
LESTIDAE Spreadwings
Lestes dissimulans Cryptic Spreadwing 5
VU 3
Lestes pallidus Pallid / Pale Spreadwing 2
3
Lestes plagiatus Highland Spreadwing 2
2
LIBELLULIDAE Skimmers
Acisoma panorpoides Grizzled Pintail 2
3
Brachythemis leucosticta Southern Banded Groundling 2
2
Crocothemis erythraea Broad Scarlet 0
2
Crocothemis sanguinolenta Little Scarlet 3
2
Diplacodes lefebvrii Black Percher 3
3
Nesciothemis farinosa Eastern Blacktail / Black-tailed Skimmer 1
2
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 100
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME BIOTIC INDEX SCORE
GLOBAL RED LIST STATUS
RSA RED LIST STATUS
LoO QDS
Orthetrum chrysostigma Epaulet Skimmer 2
2
Orthetrum icteromelas Spectacled Skimmer 2
3
Orthetrum trinacria Long Skimmer 1
3
Palpopleura jucunda Yellow-veined Widow 2
2
Palpopleura lucia Lucia Widow 2
2
Palpopleura portia Portia Widow 2
3
Pantala flavescens Wandering Glider / Pantala 0
2
Rhyothemis semihyalina Phantom Flutterer 1
3
Sympetrum fonscolombii Red-veined Darter / Nomad 0
2
Tholymis tillarga Twister 3
3
Tramea basilaris Keyhole Glider 0
2
Tramea limbata Ferruginous / Voyaging Glider 0
2
Trithemis annulata Violet Dropwing 1
2
Trithemis arteriosa Red-veined Dropwing 0
2
Trithemis donaldsoni Denim Dropwing 4
3
Trithemis dorsalis Highland / Round-hook Dropwing 0
3
Trithemis furva Navy Dropwing 0
3
Trithemis kirbyi Orange-winged / Kirby's Dropwing 0
2
Trithemis stictica Jaunty Dropwing 1
2
Zygonyx natalensis Blue / Scuffed Cascader 2
3
Zygonyx torridus Ringed Cascader 2
3
MACROMIIDAE Cruisers
Phyllomacromia picta Darting Cruiser 2
3
PLATYCNEMIDIDAE Featherlegs
Elattoneura glauca Common Threadtail 1
2
SYNLESTIDAE Malachites
Chlorolestes fasciatus Mountain Malachite 4
3 Status: VU = Vulnerable
Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO): 2 = High; 3 = Moderate
Sources: Samways (2006); Samways (2008)
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 101
13.8. Scorpion list for the study area
LoO
FAMILY & SCIENTIFIC NAME QDS SITE
BUTHIDAE (Fat-tailed scorpions)
Parabuthus mossambicensis 2 2
Parabuthus transvaalicus 2 4
Pseudolychas pegleri 3 3
Uroplectes carinatus 2 2
Uroplectes olivaceus 3 3
Uroplectes planimanus 3 4
Uroplectes triangulifer 2 3
Uroplectes vittatus 2 2
HORMURIDAE (Flat rock scorpions)
Cheloctonus jonesii 3 4
SCORPIONIDAE (Burrowing scorpions)
Opistophthalmus carinatus 2 3
Opistophthalmus glabrifrons 2 2
Opistophthalmus pugnax 3 4
Likelihood of Occurrence (LoO): 2 = High; 3 = Moderate; 4 = Low
Sources: Leeming (2003); ScorpionMAP (2016)
13.9. Main CVs
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name: SUSAN ABELL (neé BRADLEY) Position: Senior Ecologist and Co-Owner of Natural Scientific
Services Date of Birth: 29 March 1976 Nationality: South African Languages: English (mother tongue), Afrikaans
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
MSc Resource Conservation Biology (Ecology) (2000 – 2001) B Sc Hons University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (1999) B Sc University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (1998)
KEY QUALIFICATIONS
Environmental Impact Assessment:
Compiled numerous Environmental Impact Assessments, Scoping Reports and Environmental Management Programmes as required by the Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) and the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) .
Specialist Assessments:
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 102
Over 14 years performing ecological and vegetation surveys within Southern Africa. Expertises
are strong in the Savanna and Grasslands within Gauteng, North West, Limpopo, Mpumalanga,
KwaZulu Natal, Lesotho and Botswana. Further experience within the Karoid Shrub, Kalahari
and Fynbos Areas.
GIS Mapping, Database management, GIS Modelling undertaken within specialist projects
Strategic / Spatial Planning:
Co-ordinated and managed strategic spatial planning projects in Gauteng, North West Province
and Mpumalanga including the:
State of Environment Reporting
Gauteng Agricultural Potential Atlas (GAPA)
North West Biodiversity Site Inventory and Database Development Atlas
Tshwane Macro Open Space Policy
Biodiversity Database for Optimum Collieries (BHP Billiton)
Conference Presentations:
Undertaken numerous presentations at conferences (SAAB; IAIA)
Educational Training:
Education training for organisations such as Wits University and Induction Training in Biodiversity
Conservation for Mining Operations
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE
Member & Senior Ecologist: Natural Scientific Services. Johannesburg (November 2004-Present)
Project management and administration
Project management and compilation of biodiversity assessments within savanna, karoid, fynbos and grassland systems including:
Ecological assessments Vegetation/Habitat assessments; Red Data Scans; Ecological Screening, Opinions & Statements; Wetland Assessments.
Ecological Sensitivity Mapping;
Project management and compilation of Biodiversity Management & Action Plans (BMAPS);
Reserve Management Plans (examples below): Blyde River Reserve Strategic Management Plan Monate Reserve Management Plan
Alien Invasive Management Plans;
Project Management for Rehabilitation and Land-Use Plans;
Management and specialist input into Green Star Rating Projects (Ecological Component);
Environmental Impact Assessments and Scoping Reports;
Project management and compilation of a number of Environmental Impact Control Reports (EICR) for waste management projects;
Compilation of Conceptual Closure Plans for a number of mining operations;
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 103
Tender and proposal compilation;
Marketing;
Liaison with clients and government officials; and
Involvement in Specific GIS-related projects (examples below): Blyde Strategic Management Plan Visual Assessment for Natalspruit Hospital Biodiversity Database – Optimum Collieries
Project Manager: Strategic Environmental Focus (SEF) (November 2003-October
2004) Project management and administration
Project Management of and input into Ecological Assessments
Tender and proposal compilation
Marketing
Liaison with clients and government officials
Involvement in GIS-related projects. Tshwane Open Space Project Numerous State of the Environment Reports
Environmental Manager: SEF, Pretoria (April 2001- November 2003)
Project management and administration
Compilation of environmental assessments and scoping reports including:
Tourism & Recreational developments
Residential developments
Commercial and industrial developments
Liaison with government officials
Management and input into GIS-related projects: Gauteng Agricultural Potential Atlas (GAPA ) Gauteng Open Space Plan (GOSP) North West Biodiversity Database Development
Ecological Assessments / vegetation surveys / opinions/ Red Data Scans for various industries – mining, industrial, business, residential and sampling
Sensitivity mapping
University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) 1999 – 2001
Teaching Assistant:
Mammalian surveys within Wits Rural Facility, Mpumalanga
Vegetation sampling for SAFARI 2000- Kruger National Park Scientific Paper: Koedoe Journal 44/1 2001
Vegetation sampling Nylsvley Nature Reserve (2000)
Monitoring and growth experiments (1998-1999) Electron and Transmission microscopy
MEMBERSHIPS IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY
South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (Pr.Sci.Nat) Botanical Society of South Africa International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)
PAPERS PUBLISHED
Koedoe Journal 44/1 2001 Proceedings: Microscopy Society of South Africa, 1999
PAPERS PRESENTED
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 104
Proceedings of the Microscopy Society of Southern Africa, 1999 Population dynamics and regeneration ecology of Acacia nilotica and Acacia tortilis in Nylsvley
Nature Reserve, SAAB Conference 2000 Tools for Cooperative Governance: North West Biodiversity Site Inventory And Database
Development, IAIA Conference 2003
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name: CAROLINE ANGELA LöTTER (YETMAN) Firm: Natural Scientific Services CC Position: Terrestrial Ecologist Date of Birth: 6 November 1979 Nationality: South African, British Language: English, Afrikaans
KEY EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
PhD Zoology (2012). Conservation biology of the Giant Bullfrog, Pyxicephalus adspersus. (University of Pretoria).
MSc African Mammalogy (2002). Effects of body size on the activity budgets of African browsing ruminants. (University of Pretoria).
BSc Honours Zoology (2001). Terrain ruggedness and forage patch use by African browsing ungulates. (University of Pretoria).
BSc Ecology (2000). (University of Pretoria).
KEY EXPERIENCE
Specialist Assessments International Experience
o Terrestrial faunal assessments in Sierra Leone (2011 & 2012). o Terrestrial faunal assessment in Lesotho (2012).
Local Experience o Biodiversity Management Plans in Gauteng Province (2014-present). o Terrestrial faunal assessments in the Free State, Gauteng, Kwa-Zulu Natal, Limpopo,
Mpumalanga, Northern Cape and North-West provinces (2011-present). o Long-term bat monitoring for wind farm developments in the Western, Eastern, Northern
Cape and Kwa-Zulu Natal provinces (2012-2013). o Giant Bullfrog assessments in Gauteng, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North-West
provinces (2004-2011).
Research
Analysis of acoustic bat data using AnalookW (2013).
Species distribution modelling in MaxEnt (2008-2013).
Geographic Information Systems (in ArcView and ArcGIS) (2001-2013).
DNA sequencing and analysis (2003-2011).
Histology (2003-2011).
Amphibian and mammal radio- and spool-tracking (2003-2010).
Amphibian and mammal mark-recapture (2001-2010).
Extensive data analysis in Statistica (2001-2013).
Vegetation sampling (1999-2001).
Cricket behavioural studies (1999-2001).
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 105
Applied Conservation
Biodiversity Management Plans for large gold mines in Gauteng Province (2014-present).
Monitoring and mitigating impacts on bats at wind farms in South Africa, NSS (2012-2013).
Giant Bullfrog conservation in South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust (2004-2007).
Captive animal care at the National Zoological Gardens (1993-1998).
Lecturing
Third year Animal Physiology (2007).
First year Amphibian Practicals (2007-2012).
Giant Bullfrogs (2003-2012).
KEY EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE
Natural Scientific Services, Johannesburg (November 2011 – present)
Project Management o Biodiversity Management Plans in Gauteng Province (2014-present). o Biodiversity Assessments in Gauteng and Mpumalanga provinces (2012-present). o Long-term bat monitoring studies in the Western and Northern Cape provinces (2012-
2013).
Field work, data analysis and report writing o Terrestrial faunal assessments in Sierra Leone, Lesotho, and South Africa (2011-
present). o Long-term bat monitoring for wind farm developments in the Western, Eastern, Northern
Cape and Kwa-Zulu Natal provinces (2012-2013).
Exclusive Books, Woodlands Boulevard, Pretoria (2008-2011)
Night-staff management and book sales.
University of Pretoria, Pretoria (1999-2011)
Government Environmental Inspectorate exam invigilation and marking (2009-2011).
Lecturing (2007-2011).
Academic Programme Organizer for Dartmouth College, U.S.A. (2003-2007).
Editorial Assistant for The Kruger Experience (2005) by Du Toit.
Research Assistant for behavioural and evolution studies on crickets (1999-2001).
Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg (2004-2008)
Project Executant of the Giant Bullfrog Project.
Biodiversity Foundation of Africa, Zimbabwe (December 2001)
Insect and amphibian collecting expedition on the Barotse Floodplain, Zambia.
National Zoological Gardens, Pretoria (1993-1998)
Public Educator.
Assistant Nature Conservator.
Junior Nature Conservator.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 106
MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
International Association for Impact Assessment: 2014-present.
Gauteng and Northern Regions Bat Interest Group: 2014-present.
South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions: 2008-present.
Herpetological Association of Africa: 2004-present.
Zoological Society of Southern Africa: 2003-present.
PUBLICATIONS
Yetman, C.A., Verburgt, L. & S.D. Laurence (2015). Geographical distributions Pyxicephalidae
Pyxicephalus adspersus Tschudi, 1838 Giant Bullfrog. African Herp News 62: 50-53.
Scott, E., Visser, J.D., Yetman, C.A. & Oliver, L. (2013). Revalidation of Pyxicephalus angusticeps Parry,
1982 (Anura: Natatanura: Pyxicephalidae), a bullfrog endemic to the lowlands of eastern Africa.
Zootaxa 3599: 201–228.
Verburgt, L. & Yetman, C.A. (2012). Geographical Distributions: Amphibia: Anura: Pyxicephalidae:
Pyxicephalus adspersus Tchudi, 1838 Giant Bullfrog. African Herp News 57: 18-20.
Yetman, C.A., P. Mokonoto & J.W.H. Ferguson (2012). Conservation implications of the age/size
distribution of Giant Bullfrogs (Pyxicephalus adspersus) at three peri-urban breeding sites.
Herpetological Journal 22: 23-32.
Yetman, C.A., P. Mokonoto & J.W.H. Ferguson (2012). Conservation implications of the age/size
distribution of Giant Bullfrogs (Pyxicephalus adspersus) at three peri-urban breeding sites.
Herpetological Journal 22: 23-32.
Yetman, C.A. & J.W.H. Ferguson (2011). Conservation implications of spatial habitat use by adult Giant
Bullfrogs (Pyxicephalus adspersus). Journal of Herpetology 45: 56-62.
Yetman, C.A. & J.W.H. Ferguson (2011). Spawning and non-breeding activity of adult Giant Bullfrogs
(Pyxicephalus adspersus). African Journal of Herpetology 60: 13-29.
Bateman, P.W., J.W.H. Ferguson & C.A. Yetman (2006). Courtship and copulation, but not ejaculates,
reduce the longevity of female field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus). Journal of Zoology, London 268:
341-346.
Du Toit, J.T. & C.A. Yetman (2005). Effects of body size on the diurnal activity budgets of African
browsing ruminants. Oecologia 143: 317-325.
AWARDS
2010-2013: Podium positions for various 10km, 21km, 42km and +50km road and trail-running races in
Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Limpopo and North-West provinces.
2012: PhD, Academic Honorary Colours, University of Pretoria.
2009: Best PhD Student Presentation, AGM, Dept. of Zoology & Entomology, University of
Pretoria.
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 107
2005: Nominated: Science & Technology Category, Shoprite Checkers SABC 2 Woman of the
Year.
2003: Best Student Presentation, Conference, Zoological Society of Southern Africa.
2003: MSc, Academic Honorary Colours, University of Pretoria.
OTHER TRAINING
Permaculture (2016).
First Aid (2013).
Comrades Marathon (2012 & 2013)
Climbing and Fall Arrest at height (2012).
Basic 4x4ing (2010).
Snake handling (2008).
CONFERENCES
2014 & 2015: Annual Oppenheimer De Beers Group Diamond Route Research Conference,
Johannesburg, Gauteng.
2013: Annual Symposium of the Zoological Society of Southern Africa, Tshipise, Limpopo
13.10. NEMBA Requirements
Requirements of Appendix 6 – GN R982 Addressed in
This Report
1. (1) A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain
a) details of
i. the specialist who prepared the report; and
ii. the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a
curriculum vitae;
Yes
b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified
by the competent authority;
Yes
c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was
prepared;
Yes
d) the date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season
to the outcome of the assessment;
Yes
e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying
out the specialised process;
Yes
f) the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the activity and its
associated structures and infrastructure;
Yes
g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Yes
h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and
infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to beavoided, including
buffers;
Yes
i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in
knowledge;
Yes
j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the
impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives on the
Yes
EcoScan for Broiler Facility on Farm Jonathan 175
Natural Scientific Services CC 108
Requirements of Appendix 6 – GN R982 Addressed in
This Report
environment;
k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Yes
l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Yes
m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental
authorisation;
Yes
n) a reasoned opinion
i.as to whether the proposed activity or portions thereof should be
authorised; and
ii. if the opinion is that the proposed activity or portions thereof should be
authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures
that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the
closure plan;
Yes
o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the
course of preparing the specialist report;
No consultation
process conducted
for a broad level
Ecoscan
p) a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation
process and where applicable all responses thereto; and
As above
q) any other information requested by the competent authority. Yes
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR A PROPOSED
CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM
JONATHAN 175-JQ, NORTH WEST, ODI 1 MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT, NORTH WEST PROVINCE
Required under Section 38 (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999).
SAHRA Case ID: 10049
Report for:
CSIR – Environmental Management Services P.O. Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599
Tel: 021 888 2432 Email: [email protected]
On behalf of:
Jam Rock (Pty) Ltd
Dr Jayson Orton ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd
6A Scarborough Road, Muizenberg, 7945 Tel: (021) 788 8425 | 083 272 3225
Email: [email protected]
Jaco van der Walt Heritage Contracts Archaeological Consulting 37 Olienhout Street, Modimolle, 0510 Tel: 082 373 8491 Email: [email protected]
24 November 2016
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 ii
Specialist declaration I, Jayson Orton, as the appointed independent specialist, in terms of the 2014 EIA Regulations, hereby declare that I:
I act as the independent specialist in this application;
I perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views
and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;
regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be true
and correct, and do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the
activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental
Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 and any specific environmental management Act;
I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such
work;
I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge
of the Act, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;
I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation;
I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;
I have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;
I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my
possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken
with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report,
plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;
I have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist input/study
was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that
participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interested
and affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide
comments on the specialist input/study;
I have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist
input/study were considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the
application;
all the particulars furnished by me in this specialist input/study are true and correct; and
I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of
section 24F of the Act.
Name of Specialist: ____Jayson Orton______________________ Signature of the specialist: _______________________________ Date: ________24 November 2016________________________
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd was appointed by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to conduct an assessment of the potential impacts to heritage resources that might occur through the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the farm Jonathan 175-JQ in North West Province. The site is 9.1689 ha in extent and is located at S 25.2670° E 27.8836°. The project would include three hen houses, two storage facilities, a house/office and staff quarters. The site is located in a rural area that lacks any sort of large scale development. Much land has been ploughed in recent decades, although at present most is unused because of drought conditions. The study area is flat and covered in thorn bushes. Open areas between the bushes tended to be sandy. Archaeological visibility was good between the thorn bushes but not all of the site could be accessed due to dense clumps of bush. The survey revealed a number of relatively recent features including two small informal cemeteries containing three graves each. One features many cement bricks likely to have been reused from a ruin constructed of the same materials and thought to date to no earlier than the 1950s. This suggests the graves to be much more recent. The other three graves are packed with stones and may be older. Although their ages are uncertain, following the precautionary principle both cemeteries are regarded as heritage resources. Human remains are, in any event, important. The only other heritage resource present was a very low density and widespread scatter of stone artefacts, possible dating to the Middle Stone Age. These are not significant. No fossils were seen and the chances of important fossils occurring are deemed to be very small. Trace fossils, fossil pollens and spores and very rare dinosaur bones are known from the region. The original proposal would have impacted on at least one of the two cemeteries. Once their locations became known the proposal was redesigned in order to avoid impacts. As such, and provided that the graves are clearly fenced off during construction, no significant impacts to heritage resources are expected. It is recommended that the proposed chicken broiler facility should be authorised but subject to the following conditions which should be incorporated into the Environmental Authorisation:
The two graveyards should be fenced off clearly and pointed out to all construction workers and other staff on site to ensure that impacts to them are avoided;
No construction work should occur within 10 m of any of the graves; and
If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 iv
Glossary
Background scatter: Artefacts whose spatial position is conditioned more by natural forces than by human agency Hominid: a group consisting of all modern and extinct great apes (i.e. gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans) and their ancestors. Later Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending over the last approximately 20 000 years. Middle Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending approximately between 200 000 and 20 000 years ago.
Abbreviations
APHP: Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners ASAPA: Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists BAR: Basic Assessment Report CRM: Cultural Resources Management GPS: global positioning system HIA: Heritage Impact Assessment LSA: Later Stone Age
MSA: Middle Stone Age NEMA: National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998) NHRA: National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25) of 1999 READ: North West Department of Rural Environment and Agricultural Development SAHRA: South African Heritage Resources Agency SAHRIS: South African Heritage Resources Information System
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 v
Compliance with Appendix 6 of the 2014 EIA Regulations
Addressed in the Specialist Report
1. (1) A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain- a) details of-
i. the specialist who prepared the report; and ii. the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a
curriculum vitae;
Section 1.4 & Appendix 1
b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority;
Page ii
c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared;
Section 1.3
d) the date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment;
Section 3.2
e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process;
Section 3
f) the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the activity and its associated structures and infrastructure;
Section 1.1.1
g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 7.1.2
h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers;
Section 6 (Figure 5)
i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge;
Section 3.5
j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives on the environment;
Sections 6 & 7
k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Sections 7 & 13
l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Sections 7 & 13
m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation;
Section 9
n) a reasoned opinion- i. as to whether the proposed activity or portions thereof should be
authorised; and ii. if the opinion is that the proposed activity or portions thereof should be
authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan;
Section 13
o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of preparing the specialist report;
n/a (see Section 3.6)
p) a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation process and where applicable all responses thereto; and
n/a (see Section 3.6)
q) any other information requested by the competent authority. n/a
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 vi
Contents
Specialist declaration ..................................................................................................................... ii
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ iv
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... iv
Compliance with Appendix 6 of the 2014 EIA Regulations ............................................................... v
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Project description.................................................................................................................... 2
1.1.1. Aspects of the project relevant to the heritage study ................................................. 2
1.2. Terms of reference ................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Scope and purpose of the report ............................................................................................. 3
1.4. The authors ............................................................................................................................... 4
2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................. 4
3. METHODS................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1. Literature survey and information sources .............................................................................. 5
3.2. Field survey ............................................................................................................................... 5
3.3. Impact assessment ................................................................................................................... 6
3.4. Grading ..................................................................................................................................... 6
3.5. Assumptions and limitations .................................................................................................... 7
3.6. Consultation processes undertaken ......................................................................................... 7
4. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 7
4.1. Site context ............................................................................................................................... 7
4.2. Site description ......................................................................................................................... 8
5. HERITAGE CONTEXT .................................................................................................................... 8
5.1. Archaeological aspects ............................................................................................................. 9
5.2. Historical aspects and the built environment .......................................................................... 9
6. FINDINGS OF THE HERITAGE STUDY .......................................................................................... 10
6.1. Palaeontology ......................................................................................................................... 11
6.2. Archaeology ............................................................................................................................ 11
6.3. Graves ..................................................................................................................................... 12
6.4. Cultural landscape .................................................................................................................. 13
6.5. Statement of significance ....................................................................................................... 16
6.6. Summary of heritage indicators and provisional grading ...................................................... 17
7. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................... 17
7.1. Direct Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 17
7.1.1. Palaeontology ............................................................................................................. 17
7.1.2. Archaeology................................................................................................................ 17
7.1.3. Graves ......................................................................................................................... 18
7.1.4. Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 18
8. LEGISLATIVE AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 21
9. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME INPUTS .......................................................... 21
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 vii
10. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS RELATIVE TO SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS ....... 21
11. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 21
12. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 21
13. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 22
14. APPENDIX 1 – Curriculum Vitae ............................................................................................... 23
15. APPENDIX 2 – Palaeontological study ...................................................................................... 27
1
1. INTRODUCTION ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd was appointed by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to conduct an assessment of the potential impacts to heritage resources that might occur through the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the farm Jonathan 175-JQ in North West Province (Figures 1 & 2). The site is 9.1689 ha in extent and is located at S 25.2670° E 27.8836°.
Figure 1: Map showing the location of the site (red shaded polygon). The boxed area is enlarged in Figure 2.
2527BB & BD (Mapping information supplied by Chief Directorate: National Geo-Spatial Information. Website: wwwi.ngi.gov.za)
N
Macgabetlwane
Dikgophaneng
Jericho
Legonyane
Fafung
Ga-Habedi
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 km
2
Figure 2: Enlarged map showing the location of the site (red shaded polygon). 1.1. Project description The proposed chicken broiler facility would include the following components:
Three chicken broiler houses of 20 m by 130 m each;
An access road;
A storage building of 60 m by 40 m;
A storage building of 60 m by 10 m; and
A farm house and office of 40 m by 40 m. The farm has an existing borehole and has the capacity to store 10 000 L of water. Figure 3 shows the proposed layout of the facilities on the property. It should be noted that this layout is a revised layout because the original layout would have impacted on graves discovered on the property.
1.1.1. Aspects of the project relevant to the heritage study All aspects of the proposed development are relevant since excavations for foundations may impact on archaeological and/or palaeontological remains, while the above-ground aspects create potential visual (contextual) impacts to the cultural landscape and any significant heritage sites that might be visually sensitive.
3
1.2. Terms of reference ASHA Consulting was asked to produce a heritage impact assessment that would meet the requirements of the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) who had requested that a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) be submitted to them for comment. When SAHRA was notified of the proposed development, they responded on 21st September 2016 with a comment that requested submission of an HIA that included assessments of archaeological resources, palaeontological resources, and any other heritage resources that might be impacted by the proposed development.
Figure 3: Aerial view of the study area showing the spatial layout of the proposed facilities. Turquoise polygon = house / office, orange = storage facilities, green = workers’ accommodation, yellow = hen houses. 1.3. Scope and purpose of the report An HIA is a means of identifying any significant heritage resources before development begins so that these can be managed in such a way as to allow the development to proceed (if appropriate) without undue impacts to the fragile heritage of South Africa. This HIA report aims to fulfil the requirements of the heritage authorities such that a comment can be issued for consideration by North West Department of Rural Environment and Agricultural Development (READ) who will review the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) and grant or withhold authorisation. The HIA report will outline any management and/or mitigation requirements that will need to be complied with from a heritage point of view and that should be included in the conditions of authorisation should this be granted.
4
1.4. The authors Dr Jayson Orton has an MA (UCT, 2004) and a D.Phil (Oxford, UK, 2013), both in archaeology, and has been conducting Heritage Impact Assessments and archaeological specialist studies in the Western Cape and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa since 2004 (Please see curriculum vitae included as Appendix 1). He has also conducted research on aspects of the Later Stone Age in these provinces and published widely on the topic. He is an accredited heritage practitioner with the
Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP) and also holds archaeological
accreditation with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) CRM section (Member #233) as follows:
Principal Investigator: Stone Age, Shell Middens & Grave Relocation; and
Field Director: Colonial Period & Rock Art. Jaco van der Walt conducted the fieldwork and necessary background research. He has an MA in Archaeology (Wits, 2012) and has worked in the heritage field since 2001 across much of southern Africa (Please see curriculum vitae included in Appendix 1). He has carried out and published research on Iron Age sites and is an accredited heritage practitioner with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) CRM section (Member #159) as follows:
Field Director: Iron Age, Shell Middens & Grave Relocation; and
Field Supervisor: Colonial Period, Stone Age & Grave Relocation. In addition a palaeontological specialist study was commissioned. This was carried out by Dr John Almond and is appended to this report.
2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No. 25 of 1999 protects a variety of heritage resources as follows:
Section 34: structures older than 60 years;
Section 35: palaeontological, prehistoric and historical material (including ruins) more than 100 years old;
Section 36: graves and human remains older than 60 years and located outside of a formal cemetery administered by a local authority; and
Section 37: public monuments and memorials. Following Section 2, the definitions applicable to the above protections are as follows:
Structures: “any building, works, device or other facility made by people and which is fixed to land, and includes any fixtures, fittings and equipment associated therewith”;
Palaeontological material: “any fossilised remains or fossil trace of animals or plants which lived in the geological past, other than fossil fuels or fossiliferous rock intended for industrial use, and any site which contains such fossilised remains or trace”;
Archaeological material: a) “material remains resulting from human activity which are in a state of disuse and are in or on land and which are older than 100 years, including artefacts, human and hominid remains and artificial features and structures”; b) “rock art, being any form of painting, engraving or other graphic representation on a fixed rock surface or loose
5
rock or stone, which was executed by human agency and which is older than 100 years, including any area within 10m of such representation”; c) “wrecks, being any vessel or aircraft, or any part thereof, which was wrecked in South Africa, whether on land, in the internal waters, the territorial waters or in the maritime culture zone of the Republic, as defined respectively in sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1994 (Act No. 15 of 1994), and any cargo, debris or artefacts found or associated therewith, which is older than 60 years or which SAHRA considers to be worthy of conservation”; and d) “features, structures and artefacts associated with military history which are older than 75 years and the sites on which they are found”;
Grave: “means a place of interment and includes the contents, headstone or other marker of such a place and any other structure on or associated with such place”; and
Public monuments and memorials: “all monuments and memorials a) “erected on land belonging to any branch of central, provincial or local government, or on land belonging to any organisation funded by or established in terms of the legislation of such a branch of government”; or b) “which were paid for by public subscription, government funds, or a public-spirited or military organisation, and are on land belonging to any private individual.”
While landscapes with cultural significance do not have a dedicated Section in the NHRA, they are protected under the definition of the National Estate (Section 3). Section 3(2)(c) and (d) list “historical settlements and townscapes” and “landscapes and natural features of cultural significance” as part of the National Estate. Furthermore, Section 3(3) describes the reasons a place or object may have cultural heritage value; some of these speak directly to cultural landscapes. Section 38 (2a) states that if there is reason to believe that heritage resources will be affected then an impact assessment report must be submitted. This report fulfils that requirement. Under the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998; NEMA), as amended, the project is subject to a BAR. SAHRA is required to provide comment on the proposed project in order to facilitate final decision making by the North West READ.
3. METHODS 3.1. Literature survey and information sources A survey of available literature was carried out to assess the general heritage context into which the development would be set. This literature included published material, unpublished commercial reports and online material, including reports sourced from the South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS) and site records on the Wits Archaeological Database. The 1:50 000 map and historical aerial images were sourced from the Chief Directorate: National Geo-Spatial Information. The overlay function in Google Earth was used to locate the site on the historical aerial imagery. 3.2. Field survey The site was subjected to a detailed foot survey by Jaco van der Walt on 21 October 2016. This was at the end of the dry winter season and meant that ground visibility was good, although dense stands of thorn bush prevented comprehensive coverage. During the survey the positions of finds
6
were recorded on a hand-held GPS receiver set to the WGS84 datum. Photographs were taken at times in order to capture representative samples of both the affected heritage and the landscape setting of the proposed development.
Figure 4: Aerial view of the study area (blue polygon) showing the walk-paths on the site (black dashed lines). 3.3. Impact assessment For consistency, the impact assessment was conducted through application of a scale supplied by the CSIR. 3.4. Grading Section 7 of the NHRA provides for the grading of heritage resources into those of National (Grade 1), Provincial (Grade 2) and Local (Grade 3) significance. Grading is intended to allow for the identification of the appropriate level of management for any given heritage resource. Grade 1 and 2 resources are intended to be managed by the national and provincial heritage resources authorities, while Grade 3 resources would be managed by the relevant local planning authority. These bodies are responsible for grading, but anyone may make recommendations for grading. It is intended under S.7(2) that the various provincial authorities formulate a system for the further detailed grading of heritage resources of local significance but this is generally yet to happen. SAHRA (2007) has formulated its own system for use in provinces where it has commenting authority. In this system sites of high local significance are given Grade IIIA (with the implication that site should be preserved in its entirety) and Grade IIIB (with the implication that part of the site could be mitigated and part preserved as appropriate) while sites of lesser significance are referred to as having ‘General Protection’ and rated with an A (high/medium significance, requires mitigation), B (medium significance, requires recording) or C (low significance, requires no further action).
7
3.5. Assumptions and limitations The study is carried out at the surface only and hence any completely buried archaeological sites will not be readily located. Similarly, it is not always possible to determine the depth of archaeological material visible at the surface. Bedrock was absent from the surface of the site which meant that the palaeontological assessment had to be based exclusively on desktop work. The SAHRIS database reflects a number of projects located to the east and southeast but all are more than 15 km away. The majority have no HIA reports attached to them which meant that background information for this project was extremely limited. 3.6. Consultation processes undertaken The NHRA requires consultation as part of an HIA but, since the present study falls within the context of a BAR which includes a public participation process (PPP), no dedicated consultation was undertaken as part of the HIA. Interested and affected parties will have the opportunity to comment on the heritage aspects of the project during the PPP.
4. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT 4.1. Site context The site lies in a rural area which lacks any sort of large-scale development (Figure 5). The nearest villages are located some 3.5 km to the east and northeast. Only occasional small structures, presumably houses, are scattered on the surrounding farm portions and the access roads tend to be small and relatively informal.
8
Figure 5: Aerial view of the broader area around the site (blue polygon) showing the lack of large-scale development aside from the two villages to the east and northeast. 4.2. Site description The site is flat and lacks any sort of landscape feature (e.g. rock outcrops, pans, drainage lines). Although much of the area, including the entire study area, has been ploughed and cultivated in the past, the protracted drought has meant that with the lack of agriculture the thorn bush cover was quite extensive at the time of the field inspection. The sandy areas bear minimal grass cover because of the drought and a few scattered larger trees occur in places. Figures 6 and 7 show two views of the site.
Figure 6: View of the site showing an area with less bush cover. The very flat and sandy nature of the general area is evident.
Figure 7: View of the study area showing a patch of dense thorn bushes.
5. HERITAGE CONTEXT
9
This section of the report contains the desktop study and establishes what is already known about heritage resources in the vicinity of the study area. What was found during the field survey as presented below may then be compared with what is already known in order to gain an improved understanding of the significance of the newly reported resources. Note that the palaeontological background can be found within the appended palaeontological specialist study. 5.1. Archaeological aspects The area has seen very little archaeological work carried out and, as such, little background information is on record. The only CRM report relevant here is that by Van Schalkwyk (2013) who examined substation locations and a power line servitude passing through the Winterveldt agricultural holdings area some 20 km to the southeast of the present study area. He found no archaeological heritage resources but did report some graveyards. Stone Age occupation is likely to be ephemeral in the study area because of the lack of landscape foci, but, broadly-speaking, Stone Age artefacts could be expected almost anywhere. Iron Age settlement is well-known from the wider area (e.g. Coetzee & Küsel 2008), although the study area and immediate surrounds are unlikely to have been suitable for settlement because of the general lack of stone material with which to build. Iron Age settlement in the broader area would fall into two periods known as the Early Iron Age (approximately AD 400 to AD 1025) and Late Iron Age (approximately AD 1025 to AD 1830). To the south of the study area, towards Pretoria, many Iron Age sites (more than 127) are on record (Bergh 1999). Approximately 25 km to the south east of the study area is the well known Tswaing Crater where Sotho and Tswana speaking communities produced salt by filtering, boiling and evaporating lake water during AD 1200 – 1830. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the predominant black tribe in the area north of Pretoria towards the study area was the Manala-Ndebele, the Kgatla were also present in this area According to the most recent archaeological cultural distribution sequences by Huffman (2007), the study area falls on the boundary of the distribution area of various cultural groupings originating out of both the Urewe Tradition (eastern stream of migration) and the Kalundu Tradition (western stream of migration). The facies that may be present are:
Urewe Tradition: Moloko Branch – Icon facies AD 1300 - 1500 (Late Iron Age)
Madikwe facies AD 1500-1700 (Late Iron Age)
Blackburn Branch- Uitkomst facies AD 1650-1820 (Late Iron Age)
Rooiberg facies AD 1650-1750 (Late Iron Age)
Kwale branch- Mzonjani facies AD 450 – 750 (Early Iron Age)
Kalunda Tradition: Benfica sub-branch – Bambata facies AD 150-650 (Early Iron Age)
Happy Rest sub-branch – Diamant facies AD 750-1000 (Early Iron Age)
Eiland facies AD 1000-1300 (Middle Iron Age) 5.2. Historical aspects and the built environment The area is part of the land that was once incorporated within the homeland state of Bophutatswana. It is very rural and generally lacks historical development. Bophutatswana was a
10
so-called ‘black home land state’ that was formed in 1977 and continued an independent existence (officially recognised only by South Africa) until 1994.
6. FINDINGS OF THE HERITAGE STUDY This section describes the heritage resources and other features recorded in the study area during the course of the project. They are listed in Table 1 and their locations mapped in Figure 5. The archaeological material is not located or mapped as it was very thinly spread across the area. Table 1: List of sites recorded during the survey. Most appear to be less than 60 years of age and are thus not considered to be heritage resources. Label Co-ordinates Description Significance
n/a n/a Widespread but very low density scatter of stone artefacts located throughout the study area. There was no focus and their age was indeterminate; they are more than likely from the Middle Stone Age.
Very low
Cemetery 1 S25° 15' 56.5344” E27° 53' 02.0723"
This is the location of three graves that are aligned east to west. The graves are marked by a cement brick outline and are fenced in. The cement bricks are possibly sourced from the bricks from the ruin and would therefore post-date this feature.
High (although may not be a heritage resource)
Cemetery 2 S 25° 15' 57.1032" E27° 53' 00.4453"
The site consists of three graves that are aligned east to west. Based on size of the graves, the graves are of two adults and a child. The graves are marked by elongated stone cairns.
High (although may not be a heritage resource)
Shack S25° 15' 57.8626" E27° 52' 58.4542"
This is a recently built structure of corrugated iron. Although an older more permanent structure must have been present, all that is left is a cement slab indicating the position of the structure.
n/a
Ruin S25° 15' 55.3988" E27° 53' 01.6069"
This is the remains of a rectangular structure of unknown purpose. The feature is constructed from cement bricks and measures approximately 8 x 6 meters.
n/a
11
Figure 5: Aerial view of the study area showing the locations of the various finds. 6.1. Palaeontology The archaeological field study reported a flat, sandy land surface devoid of bedrock exposure (see Figure 6). This lack of bedrock has meant that geological and palaeontological knowledge in this area stems largely from analysis of borehole data. Almond (2016:1) reports that the study area overlies the Irrigasie Formation which is comprised of “reddish-brown, readily-weathered mudrocks with subordinate sandstones and minor conglomerates”. The kinds of fossils known to occur in the area are primarily trace fossils, while fossil pollens and spores and very rare dinosaur bones have also been reported. No fossils were seen during the archaeological survey. 6.2. Archaeology The survey showed that a very low density scatter of Stone Age artefacts was present throughout the general area. There was no focus to these artefacts and no ‘site’ could be delineated; the artefacts can be ascribed to background scatter. Figure 6 shows a few of these artefacts. Most were made from quartzite and some displayed cobble cortex indicating that they were made from river cobbles. Because of their very widespread distribution and very low density, these finds are of minimal heritage significance.
12
Figure 6: Stone artefacts of quartz (far left) and quartzite. The two in the middle have cobble cortex. Scale in cm. A ruined structure was located along the north-eastern boundary of the property. It was made from cement bricks (Figure 7). It is almost certainly less than 100 years of age and thus is not considered to be a heritage resource. It probably dates to the 1950s because historical aerial photography reveals that the area seemed unaltered in 1948-50 (the earliest available series), but by 1961 a number of ‘bright spots’ had appeared on the landscape. These spots indicate higher reflectivity from areas cleared of vegetation. One of these spots corresponds with the ruin. Another corresponds with the cement slab noted alongside the corrugated iron shack (Table 1).
Figure 7: View of the cement brick ruin along the north-eastern boundary of the study area. 6.3. Graves Two small informal cemeteries were located on the property. Each had three graves in it. The graves of the first were surrounded by cement bricks that were no doubt obtained from a nearby ruined structure made with the same bricks and located some 35 m away to the northwest (see above). The graves are surrounded by a wire fence and aligned east-west (Figure 8). Because the ruin is relatively recent, the graves are also necessarily recent and must post-date the collapse of the brick structure. These graves are very likely less than 60 years of age and would thus not be regarded as heritage resources in terms of the NHRA (see Section 2 above).
13
Figure 8: View of ‘Cemetery 1’ showing the three graves surrounded by a wire fence. The second cemetery also has three graves in it. These graves are covered by stone mounds and are not enclosed by any fence (Figure 9). Two graves appear to be full (i.e. adult) size, while the third is far smaller and is likely that of a child. Larger stones have been placed at the head and foot of each grave. They are aligned east-west. These three graves are very likely older and perhaps completely unrelated to those in ‘Cemetery 1’.
Figure 9: View of ‘Cemetery 2’ with the smaller grave at far left beneath a thorn bush. 6.4. Cultural landscape A survey of historical aerial photography reveals that the landscape on the site was little used during the mid-twentieth century (Figure 10). However, the wider region does show evidence of occupation with small cultivated lands and (presumably stone-built) structures in the south and north respectively (Figure 11).
14
Figure 10: Aerial photograph dating to 1948-1950 (Job 218, strip 30, photograph 1205) showing the study area to be entirely undeveloped. There is no sign of any settlement or other disturbance of the natural vegetation patterns. The study area is outlined in blue.
Figure 11: Comparative aerial photographs dating to 1948-1950 (Job 218, strip 30, photograph 1205) and 2016. Cultivated lands (yellow arrows) and structures are visible (red arrow). The study area is outlined in blue. By 1961 there was evidence of cultivation very close to the study area as well as activity on site (Figure 12). Bright spots in the vicinity of the cement brick ruin and cement slab show that structures were likely in place and in use by that time. In the broader area there is quite a bit of agricultural activity (Figure 13). The study area is outlined in blue.
15
Figure 12: Aerial photograph dating to 1961 (Job 453, strip 6, photograph 6233) showing signs of activity on the ground as ‘bright spots’ where the vegetation has been disturbed. The study area is outlined in blue.
Figure 13: Comparative aerial photographs dating to 1961 (Job 453, strip 6, photograph 6233) and 2016. It is notable that cultivation has commenced in the vicinity. The study area is outlined in blue. By 1974 the entire property had been cultivated and the prominent ‘bright spot’ is still evident around the location of the cement slab (Figure 14). In general the surrounding area shows evidence of far more cultivation than before and houses are visible in places (Figure 15). This evidence shows that a weakly developed agricultural landscape has been developed in the area but it is characterised only by very low grade landscape modification (ploughing) with none of the more
16
prominent types of features that characterise some agricultural landscapes (like farm complexes, tree lines, dams and farm roads). 6.5. Statement of significance Section 38(3)(b) of the NHRA requires an assessment of the significance of all heritage resources. In terms of Section 2(vi), ‘‘cultural significance’’ means aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic or technological value or significance. The archaeological resources are deemed to have very low cultural significance for their scientific value. Graves are deemed to have high cultural significance for their social value, although it is noted here that the graves present on the site may, in fact, not be heritage resources. Nevertheless, prudence suggests that they should be treated as heritage just to be safe. In any case, human remains should always be regarded as sensitive. The cultural landscape is of low cultural significance for its aesthetic, historical and social values.
Figure 14: Aerial photograph dating to 1974 (Job 729, strip 4, photograph 121) and 2016. The study area is outlined in blue.
17
Figure 15: Comparative aerial photographs dating to 1974 (Job 729, strip 4, photograph 121) and 2016. The study area is outlined in blue. 6.6. Summary of heritage indicators and provisional grading The archaeological resources are of very low significance and can be rated as ‘General Protection C’. They comprise of a low density, widespread scatter throughout the area. Although it is uncertain whether the graves are in fact old enough to be considered heritage, it is prudent to regard them as important. The one set (‘Cemetery 2’) may well be older than 60 years. The graves are assigned a provisional grading of IIIA.
7. IMPACT ASSESSMENT Impacts to heritage resources are possible mainly during the construction phase with a far reduced chance of impacts occurring during the operation phase. No decommissioning phase is envisaged for this project. 7.1. Direct Impacts 7.1.1. Palaeontology Impacts to palaeontological material would occur during the construction phase only. They would be direct impacts in which the fossils would be moved from their original positions and possibly destroyed. Because of the very small likelihood of fossils actually being present, the potential impact significance is also regarded as being very low. There are no fatal flaws and no mitigation or management measures are required. The impacts are assessed in Table 2. 7.1.2. Archaeology Impacts to archaeological material would occur during the construction phase only. They would be direct impacts in which the artefacts would be moved from their original positions (although
18
already out of place from ploughing) and possibly damaged or destroyed. Because the artefacts are of very low heritage significance, the potential impact significance is also regarded as being very low. There are no fatal flaws and no mitigation or management measures are required. The impacts are assessed in Table 2. 7.1.3. Graves Because the graves were potentially under threat from the original layout, a new layout was devised so as to avoid both sets of graves. As such, no impacts to the graves are expected during construction, although there is always the slight chance that they could be damaged in error. There are no fatal flaws but it will be necessary to demarcate the graves during construction and alert all personnel to their existence such that they can be adequately protected. It is also recommended that the proponent consider installing permanent fencing in order to properly mark and protect the graves in perpetuity. No construction work should occur within 10 m of the graves. The significance of the potential construction phase impacts before mitigation is rated as low because the chances of impacts, given the proposed layout, are small, while with mitigation in the form of complete avoidance the impact significance is reduced to very low. The impacts are assessed in Table 2. There is also a small chance that the graves could be damaged during the operation phase of the project during some other activity taking place on the site. However, with proper demarcation of the graves as suggested above, this impact is highly unlikely. The impact significance would again be very low after mitigation. Further to the above, there is also a small chance that further marked or unmarked graves could lie concealed in the thorn bushes on the site. There is no way to predict and impacts would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis as or if they occur. 7.1.4. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impact are unlikely to occur because of the lack of other similar developments in the area. However, there is the potential for further agricultural-related development and the potential cumulative impact significance from such activities on palaeontological resources, archaeological resources and graves is regarded as being very low with mitigation in all three cases (Table 3).
Table 2: Impact assessment summary table – Construction Phase and Operation Phase direct impacts.
Asp
ect
/ Im
pa
ct p
ath
way
Nat
ure
of
po
ten
tia
l im
pa
ct/r
isk
Stat
us
Spat
ial E
xte
nt
Du
rati
on
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Pro
bab
ility
Re
vers
ibili
ty o
f im
pac
t
Irre
pla
ceab
ility
of
rece
ivin
g
en
viro
nm
en
t/re
sou
rce
Po
ten
tial
mit
igat
ion
me
asu
res
Significance of impact/risk = consequence x probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pa
ct/r
isk
Co
nfi
de
nce
leve
l
Wit
ho
ut
mit
igat
ion
/man
age
me
nt
Wit
h m
itig
atio
n
/man
age
me
nt
(re
sid
ual
risk
/im
pac
t)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE & OPERATION PHASE
Clearing of land and
construction of
facilities
Destruction of palaeontologic
al material Negative Site Permanent Slight
Very unlikely
Non-reversible
High None Very low Very low 5 High
Destruction of archaeological
artefacts Negative Site Permanent Slight Likely
Non-reversible
High None Very low Very low 5 High
Destruction of graves
Negative Site Permanent Substantial Very
unlikely Non-
reversible High Avoid Low Very low 5 High
20
Table 3: Impact assessment summary table – Cumulative impacts
Asp
ect
/ Im
pa
ct p
ath
way
Nat
ure
of
po
ten
tia
l im
pa
ct/r
isk
Stat
us
Spat
ial E
xte
nt
Du
rati
on
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Pro
bab
ility
Re
vers
ibili
ty o
f im
pac
t
Irre
pla
ceab
ility
of
rece
ivin
g
en
viro
nm
en
t/re
sou
rce
Po
ten
tial
mit
igat
ion
me
asu
res
Significance of impact/risk = consequence x
probability
Ran
kin
g o
f im
pa
ct/r
isk
Co
nfi
de
nce
leve
l
Wit
ho
ut
mit
igat
ion
/man
age
me
nt
Wit
h m
itig
atio
n
/man
age
me
nt
(re
sid
ual
risk
/im
pac
t)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE & OPERATION PHASE
Clearing of land and
construction of
facilities
Destruction of palaeontologic
al material Negative Site Permanent Slight
Very unlikely
Non-reversible
High None Very low Very low 5 High
Destruction of archaeological
artefacts Negative Site Permanent Slight Likely
Non-reversible
High None Very low Very low 5 High
Destruction of graves
Negative Site Permanent Severe Very
unlikely Non-
reversible High Avoid Low Very low 5 High
21
8. LEGISLATIVE AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS There are no specific permit requirements related to this project, since all potentially significant impacts have been averted through the redesign of the facility. However, should the need to move the graves arise in the future then it would be necessary to research the graves in order to try to establish the names of the deceased. The required consultation process would then need to be followed in advance of application for a permit to remove the graves.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME INPUTS
It should be ensured that both sets of graves are clearly demarcated and fenced off during the construction period and that all workers on site are made aware of their existence. Monitoring would involve ensuring that the graves remain undamaged throughout the duration of the construction phase of the project. It should be ensured that if any substantial archaeological or palaeontological remains are uncovered during development they are immediately protected in situ and reported to SAHRA so that appropriate action can be taken.
10. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS RELATIVE TO SUSTAINABLE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Section 38(3)(d) requires an evaluation of the impacts on heritage resources relative to the
sustainable social and economic benefits to be derived from the development. No significant heritage impacts are expected for this project and the provision of employment to those who will run the facility is regarded as far more important than any archaeological heritage resources that might be disturbed.
11. CONCLUSIONS The only significant finds were the two small informal cemeteries. One of them is unlikely to be a heritage resource based on its probable young age, while the age of the other is less easy to determine. Nevertheless, following the precautionary principle, they are both regarded as heritage resources and the development proposal was redesigned around them. As such, no significant impacts to heritage resources are expected. There are no fatal flaws and the project should be allowed to proceed.
12. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the proposed chicken broiler facility should be authorised but subject to the following conditions which should be incorporated into the Environmental Authorisation:
22
The two graveyards should be fenced off clearly and pointed out to all construction workers and other staff on site to ensure that impacts to them are avoided;
No construction work should occur within 10 m of any of the graves; and
If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
13. REFERENCES Bergh, J.S. 1999. Geskiedenisatlas vir Suid Afrika: die vier noordelike provinsies. Edited by J.S.
Bergh. 1999. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik Uitgewers. Cotzee, F.P. & Küsel, U.S. 2008. Phase 2 Archaeological Assessment of Late Iron Age Structures on
the Farm Ledig 909 JQ (Quality Vacation Club and Golf Course), North West Province. Unpublished report prepared for Chand Environmental Consultants. Pretoria: UNISA.
Huffman, T.N. 2007. Handbook to the Iron Age: the Archaeology of Pre-Colonial Farming Societies
in Southern Africa. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, Scotsville. SAHRA. 2007. Minimum Standards: archaeological and palaeontological components of impact
assessment reports. Document produced by the South African Heritage Resources Agency, May 2007.
Van Schalkwyk, J. 2014. Basic heritage assessment report for the proposed construction of the 132
kV Dipompong and Tswaing Substations and overhead power lines. Unpublished report prepared for Envirolution Consulting. Monument Park: J van Schalkwyk.
Winter, S. & Oberholzer, B. 2013. Heritage and Scenic Resources: Inventory and Policy Framework
for the Western Cape. Report prepared for the Provincial Government of the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. Sarah Winter Heritage Planner, and Bernard Oberholzer Landscape Architect / Environmental Planner, in association with Setplan.
23
14. APPENDIX 1 – Curriculum Vitae
Curriculum Vitae
Jayson David John Orton
ARCHAEOLOGIST AND HERITAGE CONSULTANT
Contact Details and personal information:
Address: 6A Scarborough Road, Muizenberg, 7945 Telephone: (021) 788 8425 Cell Phone: 083 272 3225 Email: [email protected] Birth date and place: 22 June 1976, Cape Town, South Africa Citizenship: South African ID no: 760622 522 4085 Driver’s License: Code 08 Marital Status: Married to Carol Orton Languages spoken: English and Afrikaans
Education:
SA College High School Matric 1994 University of Cape Town B.A. (Archaeology, Environmental & Geographical Science) 1997 University of Cape Town B.A. (Honours) (Archaeology)* 1998 University of Cape Town M.A. (Archaeology) 2004 University of Oxford D.Phil. (Archaeology) 2013 *Frank Schweitzer memorial book prize for an outstanding student and the degree in the First Class.
Employment History:
Spatial Archaeology Research Unit, UCT Research assistant Jan 1996 – Dec 1998 Department of Archaeology, UCT Field archaeologist Jan 1998 – Dec 1998 UCT Archaeology Contracts Office Field archaeologist Jan 1999 – May 2004 UCT Archaeology Contracts Office Heritage & archaeological consultant Jun 2004 – May 2012 School of Archaeology, University of Oxford Undergraduate Tutor Oct 2008 – Dec 2008
ACO Associates cc Associate, Heritage & archaeological consultant
Jan 2011 – Dec 2013
ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd Director, Heritage & archaeological consultant
Jan 2014 –
Memberships and affiliations:
South African Archaeological Society Council member 2004 – Assoc. Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) member 2006 – ASAPA Cultural Resources Management Section member 2007 – UCT Department of Archaeology Research Associate 2013 – Heritage Western Cape APM Committee member 2013 – UNISA Department of Archaeology and Anthropology Research Fellow 2014 – Fish Hoek Valley Historical Association 2014 –
24
Professional Accreditation:
ASAPA membership number: 233, CRM Section member Principal Investigator: Coastal shell middens (awarded 2007) Stone Age archaeology (awarded 2007) Grave relocation (awarded 2014) Field Director: Rock art (awarded 2007)
Colonial period archaeology (awarded 2007)
Fieldwork and project experience:
Extensive fieldwork as both Field Director and Principle Investigator throughout the Western and Northern Cape, and also in the western parts of the Free State and Eastern Cape as follows: Phase 1 surveys and impact assessments: Project types
o Notification of Intent to Develop applications (for Heritage Western Cape) o Heritage Impact Assessments (largely in the Environmental Impact Assessment or Basic Assessment
context under NEMA and Section 38(8) of the NHRA, but also self-standing assessments under Section 38(1) of the NHRA)
o Archaeological specialist studies o Phase 1 test excavations in historical and prehistoric sites o Archaeological research projects
Development types o Mining and borrow pits o Roads (new and upgrades) o Residential, commercial and industrial development o Dams and pipe lines o Power lines and substations o Renewable energy facilities (wind energy, solar energy and hydro-electric facilities)
Phase 2 mitigation and research excavations: ESA open sites
o Duinefontein, Gouda MSA rock shelters
o Fish Hoek, Yzerfontein, Cederberg, Namaqualand MSA open sites
o Swartland, Bushmanland, Namaqualand LSA rock shelters
o Cederberg, Namaqualand, Bushmanland LSA open sites (inland)
o Swartland, Franschhoek, Namaqualand, Bushmanland LSA coastal shell middens
o Melkbosstrand, Yzerfontein, Saldanha Bay, Paternoster, Dwarskersbos, Infanta, Knysna, Namaqualand LSA burials
o Melkbosstrand, Saldanha Bay, Namaqualand, Knysna Historical sites
o Franschhoek (farmstead and well), Waterfront (fort, dump and well), Noordhoek (cottage), variety of small excavations in central Cape Town and surrounding suburbs
Historic burial grounds o Green Point (Prestwich Street), V&A Waterfront (Marina Residential), Paarl
25
CV Jaco van der Walt
PERSONAL PARTICULARS:
NAME: Jaco van der Walt MARITAL STATUS: Married with two dependants DATE OF BIRTH : 1977-11-04 Work Address 37 Olienhout Street, Modimolle, 0510 E-MAIL: [email protected] MOBILE: +27 82 373 8491 FAX: +27 86 691 6461
SYNOPSIS
Jaco has been actively involved as a professional archaeologist within the heritage management field in southern Africa for the past 17 years. Jaco acted as council member for the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA Member #159) in the Cultural Resource Management (CRM) portfolio for two years (2011 – 2012). He is well respected in his field and published in peer reviewed journals and presented his findings on various national and international conferences.
ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS:
Date of matriculation: 1995 Particulars of degrees/diplomas and/or other qualifications:
Name of University or Institution: University of Pretoria Degree obtained : BA Major subjects : Archaeology
Cultural Heritage Tourism Year of graduation : 2001 Name of University or Institution: University of the Witwatersrand Degree obtained : BA [Honours] Major subjects : Archaeology Year of graduation : 2002 Name of University or Institution : University of the Witwatersrand Degree Obtained :BA [Masters] Major subject :Archaeology Year of Graduation :2012
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
2011 – Present: Owner - Heritage Contracts and Archaeological Consulting CC. 2007 – 2010 : CRM Archaeologist, Managed the Heritage Contracts Unit at the University of the Witwatersrand. 2005 - 2007: CRM Archaeologist, Director of Matakoma Heritage Consultants 2004: Technical Assistant, Department of Anatomy University of Pretoria 2003: Archaeologist, Mapungubwe World Heritage Site 2001 - 2002: CRM Archaeologists, For R & R Cultural Resource Consultants, Polokwane 2000: Museum Assistant, Fort Klapperkop. Countries of work experience include: Republic of South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Tanzania, The Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Lesotho and Zambia.
26
MEMBERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS:
o Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists. Member number 159
Accreditation: Field Director Iron Age Archaeology Field Supervisor – Colonial Period Archaeology, Stone Age Archaeology and Grave
Relocation o Accredited CRM Archaeologist with SAHRA o Accredited CRM Archaeologist with AMAFA o Co-opted council member for the CRM Section of the Association of Southern African Association Professional
Archaeologists (2011 – 2012)
REFERENCES:
1. Prof Marlize Lombard Senior Lecturer, University of Johannesburg, South Africa E-mail: [email protected]
2. Prof TN Huffman Department of Archaeology Tel: (011) 717 6040 University of the Witwatersrand
3. Alex Schoeman University of the Witwatersrand E-mail: [email protected]
27
15. APPENDIX 2 – Palaeontological study
John E. Almond (2016) Natura Viva cc 1
RECOMMENDED EXEMPTION FROM FURTHER PALAEONTOLOGICAL STUDIES:
Proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm
Jonathan 175- JQ, Brits, North West Province
John E. Almond PhD (Cantab.)
Natura Viva cc,
PO Box 12410 Mill Street,
Cape Town 8010, RSA
November 2016
1. OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
See the Heritage Impact Assessment for details.
2. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
The study area for the proposed chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175-
JQ, situated some 40 km NNE of Brits, North West Province, lies within the Springbok Flats Basin
of Karoo age in a region that is characterised by very low relief. Surface exposure of the Karoo
Supergroup bedrocks within this basin is correspondingly very poor, with most geological data
derived from borehole cores (Walraven 1981, Roberts 1992, Johnson et al. 2006). Satellite images
of the study area on Farm Jonathan 175- JQ feature flat-lying, ploughed terrain at c. 1050 m amsl
between the drainage systems of the Tolwane River in the west and the Kutswane River in the
east. Field photos show low-relief terrain mantled with sandy soils and no bedrock exposure.
The bedrocks beneath the study area are assigned to the Irrigasie Formation of ill-defined
Permo-Triassic age. This succession is of probable meandering fluvial and/or lacustrine origin and
is characterised by reddish-brown, readily-weathered mudrocks with subordinate sandstones and
minor conglomerates. Reddish hues of the sediments indicate arid, oxidising palaeoclimates during
deposition.
3. PALAEONTOLOGICAL HERITAGE
The only well-established fossil remains from the Irrigasie Formation comprise undescribed trace
fossils that are responsible for the extensive bioturbation (biogenic sediment mixing) seen
throughout the succession (Johnson et al. 2006). Palynomorphs (pollens and spores) within the
northern Karoo basins of the RSA have been treated by MacRae (1988). A couple of isolated
dinosaur remains – including possible prosauropods / sauropods such as “Euskelesaurus” and
Gigantoscelus - have been reported from the Triassic, and possibly Early Jurassic, portion of the
Springbok Flats Basin (Dingle et al. 1983 Fig. 37, pp. 68-69 after Haughton 1924, Du Toit 1954)
but these are likely to be very rare.
John E. Almond (2016) Natura Viva cc 2
Figure 1: Extract from 1: 250 000 geological map sheet 2526 Rustenburg (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria) showing the approximate location of the study area for the chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, c. 40 km NNE of Brits, North West Province (black triangle). The area is underlain by fluvial and / or lacustrine sediments of the Irrigasie Formation (Karoo Supergroup) of Permo-Triassic age (P-TR, pale green).
4. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed study area is small and mantled with disturbed soils, with no bedrock exposure.
Construction of the proposed chicken broiler facility is unlikely to involve substantial excavations of
fresh (i.e. unweathered) bedrock. The only fossils recorded from the broader region are ill-defined
trace fossils, microfossils and very rare dinosaur remains. It is concluded that the area is of low
palaeontological sensitivity and the proposed development is unlikely to have significant impacts
on local palaeontological heritage resources.
It is therefore recommended that, pending the discovery of significant new fossils remains
(e.g. dinosaur bones, teeth) before or during construction, exemption from further specialist
palaeontological studies and mitigation be granted for the proposed chicken broiler facility
on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Brits, North West Province.
Should any substantial fossil remains (e.g. dinosaur bones and teeth) be encountered during
excavation, however, these should be safeguarded, preferably in situ, and reported by the ECO to
SAHRA, i.e. The South African Heritage Resources Authority, as soon as possible (SAHRA
Contact details: Dr Ragna Redelstorff. 111 Harrington Street, Cape Town 8001. P.O. Box 4637,
Cape Town 8000. Tel: 021 202 8651. Fax: 021 202 4509. Email: [email protected]) so that
5 km
N
John E. Almond (2016) Natura Viva cc 3
appropriate action can be taken by a professional palaeontologist, at the developer’s expense.
Mitigation would normally involve the scientific recording and judicious sampling or collection of
fossil material as well as associated geological data (e.g. stratigraphy, sedimentology, taphonomy)
by a professional palaeontologist.
5. KEY REFERENCES
DINGLE, R.V., SIESSER, W.G. & NEWTON, A.R. 1983. Mesozoic and Tertiary geology of
southern Africa. viii + 375 pp. Balkema, Rotterdam.
DU TOIT, A. 1954. The geology of South Africa. xii + 611pp, 41 pls. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.
HAUGHTON, S.H. 1924. The fauna and stratigraphy of the Stormberg Series. Annals of the South
African Museum 12, 323-495.
JOHNSON, M.R., VAN VUUREN, C.J., VISSER, J.N.J., COLE, D.I., WICKENS, H. DE V.,
CHRISTIE, A.D.M., ROBERTS, D.L. & BRANDL, G. 2006a. Sedimentary rocks of the Karoo
Supergroup. In: Johnson. M.R., Anhaeusser, C.R. & Thomas, R.J. (eds.) The geology of South
Africa, pp. 461-499. Geological Society of South Africa, Johannesburg & the Council for
Geoscience, Pretoria.
MACRAE, C.S. 1988. Palynostratigraphic correlation between the lower Karoo Sequence of the
Waterberg and Pafuri coal-bearing basins and the Hammanskraal macrofossil locality, Republic of
South Africa. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of South Africa 75, 217 pp.
ROBERTS, D.L. 1992. The Springbok Flats Basin - a preliminary report. Unpublished Report of
the Geological Survey of South Africa 1992-0197, 23 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.
WALRAVEN, F. 1981. The geology of the Rustenburg area. Explanation to 1: 250 000 geology
sheet 2526 Rustenburg, 37 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.
6. QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE OF THE AUTHOR
Dr John Almond has an Honours Degree in Natural Sciences (Zoology) as well as a PhD in
Palaeontology from the University of Cambridge, UK. He has been awarded post-doctoral
research fellowships at Cambridge University and in Germany, and has carried out
palaeontological research in Europe, North America, the Middle East as well as North and South
Africa. For eight years he was a scientific officer (palaeontologist) for the Geological Survey /
Council for Geoscience in the RSA. His current palaeontological research focuses on fossil record
of the Precambrian - Cambrian boundary and the Cape Supergroup of South Africa. He has
recently written palaeontological reviews for several 1: 250 000 geological maps published by the
Council for Geoscience and has contributed educational material on fossils and evolution for new
school textbooks in the RSA.
Since 2002 Dr Almond has also carried out palaeontological impact assessments for developments
and conservation areas in the Western, Eastern and Northern Cape, Mpumalanga, Limpopo,
Gauteng, Free State and Northwest Province under the aegis of his Cape Town-based company
Natura Viva cc. He has been a long-standing member of the Archaeology, Palaeontology and
John E. Almond (2016) Natura Viva cc 4
Meteorites Committee for Heritage Western Cape (HWC) and an advisor on palaeontological
conservation and management issues for the Palaeontological Society of South Africa (PSSA),
HWC and SAHRA. He is currently compiling technical reports on the provincial palaeontological
heritage of Western, Northern and Eastern Cape for SAHRA and HWC. Dr Almond is an
accredited member of PSSA and APHP (Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners –
Western Cape).
Declaration of Independence
I, John E. Almond, declare that I am an independent consultant and have no business, financial,
personal or other interest in the proposed development project, application or appeal in respect of
which I was appointed other than fair remuneration for work performed in connection with the
activity, application or appeal. There are no circumstances that compromise the objectivity of my
performing such work.
Dr John E. Almond,
Palaeontologist, Natura Viva cc
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix H, Page 1
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix H, Page 2
Nature of the Potential Impact/Risk
Status Spatial Extent
Duration Intensity Probability
Significance of
Impact/Risk (Without
Mitigation)
Reversibility Irreplaceability Confidence
level
Can the Impact/Risk
be Avoided?
Can the Impact/Risk
be Mitigated/ Managed?
Potential Mitigation Measures
Significance of Residual Impact/Risk
(With Mitigation)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Negative Local Long term Medium Definite High Moderate Moderate 3 Yes Yes Design measures to effectively control vehicle access, vehicle speed, dust, stormwater run-off, erosion and sedimentation on the road.
Implement the measures that were designed to control impacts on the road preferably during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
Low
Loss of terrestrial vegetation and faunal habitat
Negative Site-specific
Long term High Highly probable
High Low Low 3 No Yes Ensure that all infrastructure avoids all Very High and High sensitive areas
Clearly demarcate or fence in the construction site. Relocate CI plant and animal specimens from the construction footprint, with advice from an appropriate specialist.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing growing plants should be least.
Low
Loss of CI or medicinal flora Negative Local Long term Medium Probable Medium Moderate Low 3 Yes Yes Obtain permits to remove CI species Transplant CI and medicinally important floral
specimens from the infrastructure footprint to suitable locations in the surrounding area.
Obtain guidance from a suitably qualified vegetation specialist or horticulturist regarding the collection, propagation/storage and transplantation of plants.
Low
Loss of CI fauna Negative Local Long term Medium Low probable
Medium Low Moderate 2 Yes Yes Appoint an appropriate specialist to relocate CI fauna from vegetation, termitaria and soil that is removed from the infrastructure footprint.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Check open trenches for trapped animals (e.g. hedgehogs, reptiles and frogs), and relocate trapped animals with advice from an appropriate specialist.
Prohibit disturbance and persecution (e.g. poaching) of fauna, and introduction of pets and other alien fauna (apart from the production chickens).
Provide notices and training to inform workers about dangerous animals (e.g. venomous snakes and scorpions) and prohibited activities (e.g. poaching)
Low
Introduction & proliferation of alien spp.
Negative Local Long term Medium Definite High Low Low 3 Yes Yes Regulate / limit access by potential vectors of alien plants.
Maintain a tidy construction site By law, remove and dispose of Category 1b alien
species on site. All Category 2 species that remain on site must require a permit.
Low
Increase in dust and erosion degrading habitat integrity
Negative Local Long term Medium-low
Highly probable
Medium Moderate Low 2 No Yes Limit vehicles, people and materials to the construction site
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
Revegetate denude areas with locally indigenous flora a.s.a.p.
Implement erosion protection measures on site to
Low
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix H, Page 3
Nature of the Potential Impact/Risk
Status Spatial Extent
Duration Intensity Probability
Significance of
Impact/Risk (Without
Mitigation)
Reversibility Irreplaceability Confidence
level
Can the Impact/Risk
be Avoided?
Can the Impact/Risk
be Mitigated/ Managed?
Potential Mitigation Measures
Significance of Residual Impact/Risk
(With Mitigation)
reduce erosion and sedimentation of downstream areas. Measures could include bunding around soil stockpiles, and vegetation of areas not to be developed.
Implement effective and environmentally-friendly dust control measures, such as mulching or periodic
Sensory disturbances Negative Local Long term Medium-low
Highly probable
Medium Low Low 3 No Yes Time construction activities to minimize sensory disturbance of fauna.
Limit disturbance from noise. Limit disturbance from light.
Low
Destruction of graves Negative Site-specific
Permanent Medium Probable Low Low High 5 Yes Yes The two graveyards should be fenced off clearly and pointed out to all construction workers and other staff on site to ensure that impacts to them are avoided;
No construction work should occur within 10 m of any of the graves;
Very low
Destruction of archaeological artefacts
Negative Site-Specific
Permanent Medium-low
Definite Very low Low High 5 No No If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Very low
Destruction of palaeontological material
Negative Site-Specific
Permanent Medium-low
Probable Very low Low High 5 No No If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Very low
Emissions from dust generation and construction vehicles
Negative Local Short term Medium-low
Highly probable
Medium Moderate Low 2 No Yes Ensure that cleared (excavated) areas and unpaved surfaces are sprayed with water (obtained from an approved source) to minimise dust generation.
Approved soil stabilisers may be utilised to limit dust generation.
Ensure that construction vehicles travelling on unpaved roads do not exceed a speed limit of 40 km/hour.
Limit vehicles, people and materials to the construction site
Adequate dust control strategies should be applied to minimise dust deposition, for example: Periodic spraying of water on the entrance road when necessary
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Noise should also be minimised throughout construction to limit the impact on sensitive fauna such as owls and large terrestrial birds.
Limit construction activities to day time hours
Low
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix H, Page 4
Nature of the Potential Impact/Risk
Status Spatial Extent
Duration Intensity Probability
Significance of
Impact/Risk (Without
Mitigation)
Reversibility Irreplaceability Confidence
level
Can the Impact/Risk
be Avoided?
Can the Impact/Risk
be Mitigated/ Managed?
Potential Mitigation Measures
Significance of Residual Impact/Risk
(With Mitigation)
Potential spillage or discharge of construction waste water
Negative Local Short term Medium Probable Low High High 3 Yes Yes Ensure that adequate containment structures are provided for the storage of construction materials on site.
Ensure the adequate removal and disposal of construction waste and material
Very Low
Pollution of the surrounding water and ground as a result of generation of building rubble and waste scrap material
negative Local Short term Medium Probable High High High 3 Yes Yes Ensure that adequate containment structures are provided for the storage of construction materials on site.
Ensure the adequate removal and disposal of construction waste and material
Low
Opportunities for employment and skills development
Positive Local Long term Medium Probable Medium High High 3 No Ye Enhance the use of local labour and local skills as far as reasonably possible.
Where the required skills do not occur locally, and where appropriate and applicable, ensure that relevant local individuals are trained.
Ensure that an equitable percentage allocation is provided for local labour employment as well as specify the use of small-to-medium enterprises and training specifications in the Contractors contract.
Ensure that goods and services are sourced from the local and regional economy as far as reasonably possible.
High
Potential visual impacts as the result of construction activities
Negative Local Short term Medium-low
Probable Low High High 3 Yes Yes No specific mitigation measures are required other than standard construction site housekeeping and dust suppression. These are included below:
- The contractor(s) should maintain good housekeeping on site to avoid litter and minimise waste.
- Litter and rubble should be timeously removed from the construction site and disposed at a licenced waste disposal facility.
- The project developer should demarcate construction boundaries and minimise areas of surface disturbance.
- Appropriate plans should be in place to minimise fire hazards and dust generation.
Night lighting of the construction site should be minimised within requirements of safety and efficiency.
Low
Potential noise impact as the result of the use of construction equipment
Negative Local Short term Medium-low
Probable Medium Moderate High 3 No Yes Limit construction activities to day time hours Low
Potential impact on the safety of construction workers and Health injuries to construction personnel as a result of construction work
Negative Site-specific
Short term Low Improbable Medium High High 3 Yes Yes Ensure that a skilled and competent Contractor is appointed during the construction phase. The Contractor must be evaluated during the tender/appointment process in terms of safety standards.
The Contractor must ensure that all construction personnel are provided with adequate PPE for use where appropriate.
The Contractor must undertake a Construction Phase Risk Assessment.
A Construction Site Manager or Safety Supervisor should be appointed, in conjunction with the project
Medium
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix H, Page 5
Nature of the Potential Impact/Risk
Status Spatial Extent
Duration Intensity Probability
Significance of
Impact/Risk (Without
Mitigation)
Reversibility Irreplaceability Confidence
level
Can the Impact/Risk
be Avoided?
Can the Impact/Risk
be Mitigated/ Managed?
Potential Mitigation Measures
Significance of Residual Impact/Risk
(With Mitigation)
manager, to monitor all safety aspects during the construction phase. This could be the same person that is assigned to co-ordinate the construction traffic.
Ensure that roads are not closed during construction, which may restrict access for emergency services.
The Contractor must ensure that all construction personnel are provided with adequate PPE for use where appropriate.
Traffic, congestion and potential for collisions
Negative Local Short term Medium-Low
Probable Low Moderate Low 3 Yes Yes During the construction phase, suitable parking areas should be created and designated for construction trucks and vehicles.
A construction supervisor should be appointed to co-ordinate construction traffic during the construction phase (by drawing up a traffic plan prior to construction).
Road barricading should be undertaken where required and road safety signs should be adequately installed at strategic points
Low
OPERATION PHASE
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Negative Local Long term Medium Definite High Moderate Moderate 3 Yes Yes Monitor and maintain the road impact control measures to ensure that they remain effective
Environmental contamination Negative Regional Long term Medium Highly probable
Medium Low Moderate 1 No Yes Ensure that the facility is designed in accordance with international best practice norms, and with advice from an appropriate specialist, to ensure that there is no environmental contamination from effluent, fodder, carcasses and other waste, and to ensure that there is also effective storm water management
Adhere to best practice chicken husbandry and waste disposal norms
Establish appropriate emergency procedures for accidental contamination of the surroundings. Waste recycling should be incorporated into the facility’s operations as far as possible. Designate a secured, access restricted, signposted room for the storage of potentially hazardous substances such as herbicides, pesticides dips and medications. All hazardous waste should be disposed of at an appropriate licensed facility for this.
Rehabilitate contaminated areas a.s.a.p. in accordance with advice from appropriate contamination and environmental specialists
Educate workers regarding the handling of hazardous substances and about waste management and emergency procedures with regular training and notices and talks.
Low
Poor / Inappropriate control of animal pests
Negative Local Long term Medium Highly probable
Medium Low Low 3 Yes Yes Ensure that there is effective storm water drainage around the facility
Ensure that the facility is sufficiently ventilated to keep floors, bedding, and fodder as dry as possible.
Prevent and manage unwanted animal access to fodder.
Check that fan louvers (if installed) work properly,
Low
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix H, Page 6
Nature of the Potential Impact/Risk
Status Spatial Extent
Duration Intensity Probability
Significance of
Impact/Risk (Without
Mitigation)
Reversibility Irreplaceability Confidence
level
Can the Impact/Risk
be Avoided?
Can the Impact/Risk
be Mitigated/ Managed?
Potential Mitigation Measures
Significance of Residual Impact/Risk
(With Mitigation)
and close fans completely when off. Ensure that floors are sloped and slatted to facilitate
drainage. Screed concrete floors properly to seal all cracks and
limit the pooling of effluent and water.
Disease transmission Negative Local Long term High Probable Medium Moderate Low 2 Yes Yes Maintain appropriate pest control measures Effectively maintain and seal all pipes and reservoirs
containing slurry, to prevent animals from accessing the effluent.
Low
Altered burning Negative Local Long term Medium Definite High Moderate Low 3 Yes Yes Create safe storage on the premises for flammable materials. If artificial burning is considered necessary, establish and implement a fire management plan with emergency fire procedures
Maintain an effective fire break between the development area and the surrounding natural environment (especially the ridge to the north, where the fire-dependent Highveld Blue butterfly may occur)
Educate workers about the plan and emergency procedures with regular training and notices
Medium
Introduction & proliferation of alien species
Negative Local Long term Medium Definite High Low Moderate 3 Yes Yes Carefully regulate / limit access by vehicles and materials to the site
Prohibit the introduction of domestic animals such as dogs and cats.
Plant only locally indigenous flora if landscaping needs to be done.
Employ best practices regarding tilling of soil and weed management
Minimize the accumulation or dispersal of excess fodder on site.
Remove Category species using mechanical methods, and minimize soil disturbance as far as possible. Alien debris could be donated to a local community
Low
Sensory disturbances Negative Local Long term Medium-low
Definite Medium Low Low 3 Yes Yes Minimize essential lighting. Ensure that all outdoor lights are angled downwards
and/or fitted with hoods. Avoid using metal halide, mercury or other bulbs
that emit high UV (blue-white) light that is highly and usually fatally attractive to insects.
Use bulbs that emit warm, long wavelength (yellow-red) light, or use UV filters or glass housings on lamps to filter out UV.
Low
Destruction of graves Negative Site-specific
Permanent Medium Probable Low Low High 5 Yes Yes The two graveyards should be fenced off clearly and pointed out to all construction workers and other staff on site to ensure that impacts to them are avoided;
No construction work should occur within 10 m of any of the graves;
Very low
Destruction of archaeological artefacts
Negative Site-Specific
Permanent Medium-low
Definite Very low Low High 5 No No If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such
Very low
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix H, Page 7
Nature of the Potential Impact/Risk
Status Spatial Extent
Duration Intensity Probability
Significance of
Impact/Risk (Without
Mitigation)
Reversibility Irreplaceability Confidence
level
Can the Impact/Risk
be Avoided?
Can the Impact/Risk
be Mitigated/ Managed?
Potential Mitigation Measures
Significance of Residual Impact/Risk
(With Mitigation)
heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Destruction of palaeontological material
Negative Site-Specific
Permanent Medium-low
Probable Very low Low High 5 No No If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Very low
Emissions into the atmosphere as a result of staff vehicles.
Negative Local Short term Medium-low
Highly probable
Medium Moderate Low 2 No Yes Efficient movement of traffic through the entrance and exit in order to reduce congestion and vehicle emissions.
Ensure that the facility is operated in such a manner whereby potential odours are minimised.
Low
Improved service delivery with regards pork products
Positive Local Long term Medium Probable Medium High High 3 No Yes Ensure that the proposed infrastructure is maintained appropriately to ensure that all facilities and infrastructure operate within its design capacity to deliver as the market requires.
High
Opportunities for employment and skills development
Positive Local Long term Medium Probable Medium High High 3 No Yes Enhance the use of local labour and local skills as far as reasonably possible. Where the required skills do not occur locally, and where appropriate and applicable, ensure that relevant local individuals are trained
Ensure that an equitable percentage allocation is provided for local labour employment as well as specify the use of small-to-medium enterprises and training specifications in the Contractors contract.
High
Night lighting of the development on the nightscape of the surrounding landscape
Negative Local Long term Medium Highly probable
Low Moderate Low 3 Yes
No
No specific mitigation measures are recommended as it is assumed that night lighting of the proposed storage facility will be planned in such a manner so as to minimize light pollution such as glare and light spill (light trespass) by:
Using light fixtures that shield the light and focus illumination on the ground (or only where light is required).
Avoiding elevated lights within safety/security requirements.
Using minimum lamp wattage within safety/security requirements.
Where possible, using timer switches or motion detectors to control lighting in areas that are not occupied continuously (if permissible and in line with minimum security requirements).
Switching off lights when not in use in line with safety and security.
Low
Potential noise impact from operations and road transportation of products
Negative Site specific
Short term Medium-low
Probable Medium Moderate High 3 No Yes It is recommended that the drivers of the vehicles be discouraged from using air brakes at night.
Limit the effects of noise associated disturbances from chickens and operational activities on sensitive fauna such as owls and medium-large mammals (especially carnivores), potentially occurring hedgehogs and large terrestrial birds such as Korhaans and Secretarybirds.
Low
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix H, Page 8
Nature of the Potential Impact/Risk
Status Spatial Extent
Duration Intensity Probability
Significance of
Impact/Risk (Without
Mitigation)
Reversibility Irreplaceability Confidence
level
Can the Impact/Risk
be Avoided?
Can the Impact/Risk
be Mitigated/ Managed?
Potential Mitigation Measures
Significance of Residual Impact/Risk
(With Mitigation)
Atmospheric pollution due to fumes, smoke from fires
Negative Local Short term Medium-low
improbable Medium Moderate High 3 Yes
Yes
Portable fire extinguishers and fire water hydrants (i.e. appropriate fire-fighting equipment) should be provided at the terminal as required. Mobile fire-fighting equipment should be provided at the berths as a safety precaution during the vessel offloading process. It should be noted that the products planned to be stored at the terminal have high flash points and low volatility. As a result, fires are unlikely, unsustainable, and can be extinguished with basic fire water and portable fire extinguishers.
Low
Minor accidents to the public and moderate accidents to operational staff
Negative Local Long term Medium-low
Improbable Medium Moderate High 3 Yes Yes An Emergency Plan should be compiled in order to deal with potential spillages and fires. Records of practices should be kept on site.
Scheduled inspections should be implemented by operating personnel in order to assure and verify the integrity of hoses, piping and storage lagoon.
Portable fire extinguishers and fire water hydrants (i.e. appropriate fire-fighting equipment) should be provided at the facility as required.
Low
DECOMMISSIONING PHASE
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Negative Local Long term Medium Definite High Moderate Moderate 3 Yes Yes Monitor and maintain the road impact control measures to ensure that they remain effective
Introduction & proliferation of alien spp. - Competition and change in structure
Negative Local Long term High Definite High Low Low 3 Yes Yes Remove Category species using mechanical methods and minimize soil disturbance as far as possible.
Low
Sensory disturbances Negative Local Long term Medium-low
Highly probable
Low Moderate Low 3 Yes Yes Commence (and preferably complete) demolition / rehabilitation during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Minimize noise to limit its impact on sensitive fauna such as owls, korhaans and Secretarybirds
Limit demolition activities to day time hours
Minimize or eliminate security and other lighting, to reduce the disturbance of nocturnal fauna
Implement environmentally-friendly dust control measures (e.g. mulching and wetting) where and when dust is problematic
Rehabilitate contaminated areas a.s.a.p. in accordance with advice from appropriate specialists. Implement the selected control measure(s) where dust is problematic. Revegetate denude areas with locally indigenous flora a.s.a.p.
Low
Destruction of graves Negative Site-specific
Permanent Medium Probable Low Low High 5 Yes Yes The two graveyards should be fenced off clearly and pointed out to all construction workers and other staff on site to ensure that impacts to them are avoided;
No construction work should occur within 10 m of any of the graves;
Very low
Destruction of archaeological artefacts
Negative Site-Specific
Permanent Medium-low
Definite Very low Low High 5 No No If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such
Very low
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix H, Page 9
Nature of the Potential Impact/Risk
Status Spatial Extent
Duration Intensity Probability
Significance of
Impact/Risk (Without
Mitigation)
Reversibility Irreplaceability Confidence
level
Can the Impact/Risk
be Avoided?
Can the Impact/Risk
be Mitigated/ Managed?
Potential Mitigation Measures
Significance of Residual Impact/Risk
(With Mitigation)
heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Destruction of palaeontological material
Negative Site-Specific
Permanent Medium-low
Probable Very low Low High 5 No No If any archaeological material, palaeontological material or human burials are uncovered during the course of development then work in the immediate area should be halted. The find would need to be reported to the heritage authorities and may require inspection by an appropriate specialist. Such heritage is the property of the state and may require excavation and curation in an approved institution.
Very low
Discharge of contaminated stormwater into the surrounding environment
Negative Local Long term High Highly probable
Medium Moderate High 3 Yes Yes The appointed Contractor should compile a Method Statement for Stormwater Management during the decommissioning phase.
Provide secure storage for oil, chemicals and other waste materials to prevent contamination of stormwater runoff.
Low
Pollution of the surrounding environment as a result of the handling, temporary storage and disposal of solid waste
Negative Local Short term Medium Probable Medium High High 3 Yes Yes General waste (i.e. building rubble, demolition waste, discarded concrete, bricks, tiles, wood, glass, plastic, metal, excavated material, packaging material, paper and domestic waste etc.) and hazardous waste (i.e. empty tins, paint and paint cleaning liquids, oils, fuel spillages and chemicals etc.) generated during the decommissioning phase should be stored temporarily on site in suitable (and correctly labelled) waste collection bins and skips (or similar). Waste collection bins and skips should be covered with suitable material, where appropriate.
Should the on-site storage of general waste and hazardous waste exceed 100 m3 and 80 m3 respectively, then the National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste (published on 29 November 2013 under GN 926) must be adhered to.
Ensure that general waste and hazardous waste generated are removed from the site on a regular basis and disposed of at an appropriate, licensed waste disposal facility by an approved waste management Contractor. Waste disposal slips or waybills should be kept on file for auditing purposes as proof of disposal.
Ensure that sufficient general waste disposal bins are provided for all personnel throughout the site. These bins must be emptied on a regular basis.
Appropriately time demolition / rehabilitation activities to minimise sensory disturbance to fauna.
Low
Emissions from decommissioning vehicles and generation of dust
Negative Local Short term Medium-low
Highly probable
Medium Moderate Low 2 No Yes Ensure that cleared (excavated) areas and unpaved surfaces are sprayed with water (obtained from an approved source) to minimise dust generation.
Approved soil stabilisers may be utilised to limit dust generation.
Ensure that decommissioning vehicles travelling on unpaved roads do not exceed a speed limit of 40 km/hour.
Low
Noise generation from demolition activities
Negative Site specific
Short term Medium-low
Probable Medium Moderate High 3 No Yes A method statement, including detailed procedures, must be drawn up prior to any decommissioning of existing tanks.
Low
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix H, Page 10
Nature of the Potential Impact/Risk
Status Spatial Extent
Duration Intensity Probability
Significance of
Impact/Risk (Without
Mitigation)
Reversibility Irreplaceability Confidence
level
Can the Impact/Risk
be Avoided?
Can the Impact/Risk
be Mitigated/ Managed?
Potential Mitigation Measures
Significance of Residual Impact/Risk
(With Mitigation)
Decommissioning personnel must wear proper hearing protection, which should be specified as part of the Decommissioning Phase Risk Assessment carried out by the Contractor.
The Contractor must ensure that all decommissioning personnel are provided with adequate PPE, where appropriate.
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix I, Page 1
Appendix I1: Proof of the placement of the relevant advertisements and notices _____________________ 2
Appendix I2: Proof that the key stakeholder received written notification of the proposed activities ____________________________________________________________________ 7
Appendix I3: Comments Received from I&AP _________________________________________________ 17
Appendix I4: Proof that the Authorities and Organs of State received written notification and draft reports of the proposed activities. __________________________________________ 25
Appendix I5: A list of registered Interested and Affected Parties _________________________________ 26
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 2
Appendix I1: Proof of the placement of the relevant advertisements and notices
Proof of newspaper advertisement
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 3
Contents of Newspaper Advertisement
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 4
Proof of Site Notice
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 5
Contents of the Site Notice
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 6
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 7
Appendix I2: Proof that the key stakeholder received written notification of the proposed activities
Email to I&AP
From: Reinett Mogotshi Date: 25/08/2016 14:44 Subject:
Notification of Release of BID Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175-JQ, Brits, North West.
Bc: [email protected]; [email protected]; tnemarude@en... Attachments:
BID_final.pdf; I&APs Cover Letter_Draft_ENGLISH.pdf; Register I&APs_Disclosure of interest_ENGLISH.docx
Good day, You are hereby notified about the release of the Background Information Document (BID) for the Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175-JQ, Brits, North West. Please find attached the BID, which has been released for 30 day review, and the Registration/ Comment Form. Please return or before 26 September 2016. Should the contents of this project not pertain to you, kindly forward the documents to the person in your department that is affected. Additionally, please forward their contact details to the CSIR Project Manager or ask the affected party to contact the CSIR Project Manager. Should you wish to be registered or de-registered from receiving any further information during the Basic Assessment and Public Participation Process, kindly contact the CSIR Project Manager. Correspondence in this regard should preferably be via a hard copy, i.e. Email, Fax or Letter. Contact via: Ms. Reinett Mogotshi Email: [email protected] Tel: 021 888 2432 Fax: 021 888 2473 Postal: PO Box 320
Stellenbosch 7599 South Africa
Regards, CSIR Project Manager Ms. Reinett Mogotshi
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 8
Delivery Report
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:44
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transfer Delayed
Transfer Delayed 25/08/2016 14:44
Transferred 25/08/2016 15:05
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:44
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:44
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Undelivered 421 service unavailable
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 9
[email protected] Transferred
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:44
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Undelivered
550 5.1.1 <[email protected]>: Recipient address rejected: undeliverable address: host 10.145.142.11[10.145.142.11] said: 550 No such recipient (in reply to RCPT TO command)
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
Undeliverable 25/08/2016 14:45
550 5.1.1 <[email protected]>: Recipient address rejected: undeliverable address: host 10.145.142.11[10.145.142.11] said: 550 No such recipient (in reply to RCPT TO command)
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Undelivered
550 5.1.1 <[email protected]>: Recipient address rejected: undeliverable address: host 10.145.142.11[10.145.142.11] said: 550 No such recipient (in reply to RCPT TO command)
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:44
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:44
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 10
[email protected] Undelivered
550 5.1.1 <[email protected]>: Recipient address rejected: undeliverable address: host 10.145.142.11[10.145.142.11] said: 550 No such recipient (in reply to RCPT TO command)
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
Undeliverable 25/08/2016 14:45
550 5.1.1 <[email protected]>: Recipient address rejected: undeliverable address: host 10.145.142.11[10.145.142.11] said: 550 No such recipient (in reply to RCPT TO command)
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:44
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:44
[email protected] Transferred
Transferred 25/08/2016 14:45
Attachments: User: 3,System: 2
BID_final.pdf 826 KB (846369 Bytes) 23/08/2016 10:20
I&APs Cover Letter_Draft_ENGLISH.pdf 336 KB (344168 Bytes) 25/08/2016 14:35
Register I&APs_Disclosure of interest_ENGLISH.docx 147 KB (150980 Bytes) 23/08/2016 16:36
MESSAGE 4 KB (4667 Bytes) 25/08/2016 14:44
TEXT.htm 5 KB (5948 Bytes) 25/08/2016 14:44
Send Options:
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 11
Letter to I&AP
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 12
Proof of Postage
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 13
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 14
Attendance register for the community meeting was held on the 29th of April 2017 at Mankgekgetha Primary School in Jonathan.
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 15
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 16
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 17
Appendix I3: Comments Received from I&AP From: "Ogopoleng Kgathea" <[email protected]> To: "Reinett Mogotshi" <[email protected]> Date: 25/08/2016 15:42 Subject:
Re: Notification of Release of BID Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175-JQ, Brits, North West.
Cc: "Happy Mokone" <[email protected]>
Good afternoon We really appreciate for the info and we are hoping for more in future. Kind regards Secretary: Enterprise Development Ogopoleng
TEL: 018 387 7965 Cell: 073 1708 695 Fax: 086 260 4952 Email: [email protected] "putting people first"
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 18
From: "Motlhabane Mosiane" <[email protected]> To: "Reinett Mogotshi" <[email protected]> Date: 25/08/2016 15:42 Subject:
Re: Notification of Release of BID Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175-JQ, Brits, North West.
Cc: "Natasha Higgitt" <[email protected]>
Greetings, Thank you for notifying NWPHRA of the proposed development. Please note that SAHRA does not accept emailed, posted, hardcopy or website links as official submissions. Please create a case on the South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS) and upload all documents (i.e. the Scoping report and all appendices) to the case file. Step-by-step tutorial videos on the SAHRIS homepage (http://sahra.org.za/sahris/) will show you how to complete this. Please inform Ms Natasha Higgitt :Heritage Officer: Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorites Unit of SAHRA when this has been completed and She will attend to the case.her contact details outlined as follows :TEL: +27 21 462 4502 | FAX: +27 21 462 4509 EMAIL: [email protected] I hope you will find the above in order, Kind Regards, Motlhabane Mosiane Provincial Coordinator:North West PHRA Tel:018 388 2826 E-mail:[email protected]
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 19
From: "Victoria Bota (HO)" <[email protected]> To: 'Reinett Mogotshi' <[email protected]> Date: 25/08/2016 16:25 Subject:
RE: Notification of Release of BID Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175-JQ, Brits, North West.
Good day Reinett SANRAL will not be affected by the proposed activity as no National Road is affected. Please note that should a National Road be affected in the future, permission will have to be obtained from SANRAL. Please remove SANRAL from the distribution list for this project. Thank you Kind regards
Ms Victoria Bota Environmental Co-ordinator Tel: 012 844 8031 Cell:061 647 5212 Fax:012 348 1512 Email: [email protected]
Northern Region 38 Ida Street Menlo Park Pretoria SANRAL Fraud Hotline: 0800204558
One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life...
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 20
From: Carmen Barends <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Date: 29/08/2016 11:21 Subject: Chicken Broiler Facility
Good day Reinett, Please could I register as an I&A party for the above Project and if possible obtain the Background Information Document for the Project? Thank you. Kind Regards, Carmen Barends Regional Content Researcher Private Projects Leads 2 Business (www.L2B.co.za) Tel: 033 343 1130 or 0860 836337 (0860 TENDER) Fax: 033 343 5882 This e-mail is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by e-mail. Dissemination or copying is prohibited unless permitted by the sender, and then only by the intended addressee. Whilst reasonable measures are used to guard against the transmission of malicious code, no liability is accepted for its transmission. If this e-mail is not related to the business of Cedrus Internet Solutions (Pty) Ltd, it is sent by the above mentioned in their individual capacity and not on behalf of Cedrus Internet Solutions (Pty) Ltd. Please note that any views expressed in this email may be those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of Cedrus Internet
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 21
Comments received during a community meeting
From: Vincent Maseko <[email protected]>
To:
Karabo Mashabela <[email protected]>, Reinett Mogotshi
<rmogotshi@c...
Date: 02/05/2017 17:15
Subject: Re: BAr for public participation
Attachments: Jonathan Att.pdf
Good day Please see attached is the attendance register for the meeting held on the 29th of April 2017 at Mankgekgetha Primary School in Jonathan. The meeting was attended was attended by just above 50 members of the community. I Vincent Maseko was able to briefly go through the BAR (Basic Assessment Report) for the proposed poultry business. The news was met with excitement by most members of the community especially the ones who knew me from previous projects as my father was the founder and chairman of the Jonathan Farming Cooperative. Others however like Mr. Sidney Makhathini had objections which were not welcomed by other members of the community. Here are some objections and questions asked by attendants. Objections: 1. How come this type of project is available for the Maseko Family and not the community as a whole? -> (answer): This is a privately funded and founded project and I Vincent Maseko am not a member of the Cooperative, CPA, Local Authority or represent any political movement. The project will be privately funded and managed. 2. Why is it being announced in the meeting? -> (answer): First to alert the members of Jonathan of this opportunity coming their way and the need of skills that will be required during the erection and operation of the project. And how the members of the community can gain or get involved. 3. When will it start? -> (answer): As soon as the Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed and funding secured. Hopefully towards the end of the year or early next year after all systems would have been put in place. 4. Can you keep us posted? -> (answer): Yes, follow up announcements will be made during quarterly meetings held by the community. Thanking you in advance Vincent Maseko 073 142 7536
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 22
Comments and Response Trail
ISSUES RAISED COMMENTATOR DATE RESPONSE
We really appreciate for the info and we are hoping for more in future.
Secretary:Enterprise Development Ogopoleng Kgathea
25/08/2016 Thank you for your comment, Noted.
Thank you for notifying NWPHRA of the proposed development. Please note that SAHRA does not accept emailed, posted, hardcopy or website links as official submissions. Please create a case on the South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS) and upload all documents (i.e. the Scoping report and all appendices) to the case file. Step-by-step tutorial videos on the SAHRIS homepage (http://sahra.org.za/sahris/) will show you how to complete this. Please inform Ms Natasha Higgitt :Heritage Officer: Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorites Unit of SAHRA when this has been completed and She will attend to the case.her contact details outlined as follows :TEL: +27 21 462 4502 | FAX: +27 21 462 4509 EMAIL: [email protected] I hope you will find the above in order.
Motlhabane Mosiane Provincial Coordinator:North West PHRA
25/08/2016 Thank you for your comment. The Draft Basic Assessment Report shall be uploaded on the SAHRIS website.
SANRAL will not be affected by the proposed activity as no National Road is affected. Please note that should a National Road be affected in the future, permission will have to be obtained from SANRAL. Please remove SANRAL from the distribution list for this project. Thank you
Ms Victoria Bota SANRAL Environmental Co-ordinator
25/08/2016 Thank you for your comment. Please note that SANRAL has been removed from the distribution list for this project.
Please could I register as an I&AP for the above Project and if possible obtain the Background Information Document for the Project?
Carmen Barends Regional Content Researcher Private Projects Leads 2 Business (www.L2B.co.za)
29/08/2016 Noted, you have been registered as an interested and Affected Party.
I like to raise issue of criminal activity as an concern in the running of the project. Trees removal that may hamper the erection of broiler
Phillip Maseko Manager
26/07/2016 Thank you for your comment, the proposed development shall ensure minimal removal of trees
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 23
ISSUES RAISED COMMENTATOR DATE RESPONSE
facilities. Jamrock (Post) from the site. Furthermore a security fence shall be erected on site as a means to address criminal activities issues.
The following questions were raised at the community meeting regarding the proposed development 1. How come this type of project is available for the Maseko Family and not the community as a whole? 2. Why is it being announced in the meeting? 3. When will it start? 4. Can you keep us posted?
Comments received from the community (Community Meeting)
29/04/2017 Thank you for your comments, 1. Response by applicant: This is a privately funded and founded project and I Vincent Maseko, am not a member of the Cooperative, CPA, Local Authority or represent any political movement. The project will be privately funded and managed 2. Response by applicant: First to alert the members of Jonathan of this opportunity coming their way and the need of skills that will be required during the erection and operation of the project. And how the members of the community can gain or get involved. Response by the EAP: In addition to the response by the applicant, this project is announced at the community meeting as part of the public participation process required as part of the Basic Assessment process. This is to ensure that the members of the community are aware of the project and are given an opportunity to raise any issues that they may have. 3. Response by applicant: As soon as the Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed and funding secured. Hopefully towards the end of the year or early next year after all systems would have been put in place. 4. Response by applicant: Yes, follow up announcements will be made during quarterly meetings held by the community.
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 24
ISSUES RAISED COMMENTATOR DATE RESPONSE
Response by the EAP: Noted, the Draft Basic Assessment Report shall be made available for review at Puo-Phaa Secondary School as well as to the chairman of the community.
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 25
Appendix I4: Proof that the Authorities and Organs of State received written notification and draft reports of the proposed activities.
NOT AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION AT THIS STAGE
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 26
Appendix I5: A list of registered Interested and Affected Parties
Company/organization Name Postal
NATIONAL, PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL
Department of Environmental Affairs- National Mmatlala Rabothata Fedsure Building, Private Bag X447, 315 Pretorius Street, Pretoria, 0002
Department of Environmental Affairs- National Sibusisiwe Hlela Fedsure Building, Private Bag X447, 315 Pretorius Street,Pretoria 0002
Department of Environmental Affairs- National Takalani Nemarude Fedsure Building, Private Bag X447, 315 Pretorius Street, Pretoria 0002
Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Bonginkosi Zulu Fedsure Building, Private Bag X447, 315 Pretorius Street, Pretoria 0002
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Mashudu Marubini Private Bag X138, Pretoria, 0001
National Department of Mineral Resources Kgauta Mokoena Private Bag X59, Arcadia 0007
National Department of Water Affairs Ms Ndileka K mohapi Private Bag X313,Pretoria, 0001
National Department of Water Affairs Namisha Muthraparsad Private Bag X313,Pretoria, 0001
NW READ Rhuleni Mathebula Private Bag X2039,Mmabatho,2739
NW READ Malefyane Mosadi Private Bag X2039,Mmabatho,2739
Moretele Local Municipality Amogelang Sefara Private Bag X367, Makapanstad, North West, 0404
Moretele Local Municipality Municipal Manager Private Bag X367, Makapanstad, North West, 0404
Bojanala Platinum District Municipality Goitsimosimo Tau P O Box 1993, Rustenburg,0300
LANDOWNERS & NEIGHBOURS
Community Chairman- Plot 260 Jonathan Mr Ngema Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0270
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 46 Jonathan Jan Maseko Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0271
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix I, Page 27
Company/organization Name Postal
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 48 Jonathan Mathews Mlangeni Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0272
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 41 Jonathan David Maseko Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0273
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 274 Jonathan Boysee Masango Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0274
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 48 Jonathan Joshua Mlangeni Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0275
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 61 Jonathan Edwin Lelaka Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0276
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 35 Jonathan Senza Ngozo Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0277
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 46 Jonathan Alfred Ngobese Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0278
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 46 Jonathan Madoda Maseko Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0279
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 48 Jonathan Sbongseni Mlangeni Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0280
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 35 Jonathan Mndeni Ngozo Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0281
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 232 Jonathan Bongane Radebe Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0282
Ward Councillor Mr. Mosetlhe P O Box 1962, Hammanskraal, 0400
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 48 Jonathan Ntomfuthi Mlangeni Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0284
Neighbouring Landowner- Plot 35 Jonathan Caiphus Ngozo Private Bag X1031 Bethanie, 0285
OTHER
North West Parks & Tourism Board Andrew Mvundle
NW Parks Board Bird Sanctuary Sampie van der Merwe
South African National Parks (SANParks) Dr. Howard Hendriks PO Box 787, Pretoria, 0001
Council for Geoscience Dr Stewart Foya Private Bag x112, Pretoria 0001
South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) Marie South PO Box 4637, Cape Town, 8000
Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) Stephanie Aken
AgriLand Anneliza Collett Private Bag X120, Pretoria 0001
Client Vincent Maseko P O Box 60382, Karen Park, 0118
Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Thembi N Private Bag X120, Pretoria, 001
Leads 2 Business Carmen Barends
EMPr - Appendix J, Page 1
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the
Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t : DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 1
1 INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Management Programme 3
1.2 Contents of the EMPr 3
1.3 Environmental Assessment Practitioner 5
1.4 Description of applicable legislation and policies 6 1.4.1 National Environmental Management Act 6 1.4.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 7 1.4.3 National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) 7 1.4.4 National Environmental Management Waste Act (NEM:WA) GNR 921, 29 November 2013 7 1.4.5 National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 7 1.4.6 National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 7
2 THE APPROACH TO THE EMPR 7
3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 8
3.1 Farm Manager and Team 8
3.2 The Contractor 8
3.3 Environmental Control Officer 8
4 THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9
5 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 16
6 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION/ ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS PLAN 46
7 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & REPORTING/ AUDITING 46
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the
Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t : DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 2
Table 1-1: Compliance with Appendix 4 of Government Notice Regulation 326 of 7 April 2017 and Section 24N of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998. ____________________ 4
Table 5-1: Impact management plan for the proposed Design and Planning Phase ______________________ 16
Table 5-2: Impact management plan for the proposed Construction Phase ____________________________ 19
Table 5-3: Impact management plan for the proposed Operational Phase _____________________________ 31
Table 5-4: Impact management plan for the proposed Decommissioning Phase ________________________ 40
Figure 1: Map showing areas of conservation concerns as identified by (NSS, 2016) _____________________ 11
Figure 2: The biodiversity map of the proposed development site ___________________________________ 12
Figure 3: Aerial view of the property showing the locations of the identified finds in relation to the proposed development areas. Red symbols are heritage resources within the proposed development site. _________________________________________________________________ 13
Figure 4: Site layout of the proposed development site (as supplied by the Project Proponent) ____________ 14
Figure 5: Layout of the proposed development with sensitivities ____________________________________ 15
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the
Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t : DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 3
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Management Programme Jam Rock (Pty) Ltd is a producer of broiler chickens that are raised with strict considerations for chickens and the environment. It is located in Brits, North West Province. The Enterprise proposes to develop three chicken broiler houses with associated infrastructure including a road, storage unit and farm house. The size of each chicken house will be 20m x 130m, with the capacity to breed 40 000 chickens per cycle. The farm is 9.2 hectares and is situated on Portion 40 of the farm Jonathan 175-JQ. Furthermore the farm has an existing borehole with the capacity to store 10 000 L of water. This Draft Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) is prepared as part of the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (December 2017, as amended) promulgated under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998, as amended). The purpose of this Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) is to ensure “good environmental practice‟ by taking a holistic approach to the management and mitigation of environmental impacts during the construction, operation and decommissioning phase of the proposed chicken broiler. This EMPr therefore sets out the methods by which proper environmental controls are to be implemented by the broiler’s management. The Draft EMPr is to be submitted to the North West Department of Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development as part of the Application for Environmental Authorisation. This EMPr is considered as a document that can be updated as new information becomes available during the construction, operational and operational phases, if applicable, of the proposed development. Mitigations measure need to be implemented as addressed in this EMPr, except where they are not applicable, and additional measures should be considered when necessary. The EMPr identifies the following:
Construction and Operation activities that will impact on the environment; Specifications with which the broiler’s management shall comply in order to protect the
environment from the identified impacts; and Actions that shall be taken in the event of non-compliance.
This EMPr incorporates management plans for the design, construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the project, which consist of the following components:
Impact: The potential positive or negative impact of the development that needs to be enhanced, mitigated or eliminated.
Objectives: The objectives necessary in order to meet the goal; these take into account the findings of the specialist studies.
Mitigation/Management Actions: The actions needed to achieve the objectives, taking into consideration factors such as responsibility, methods, frequency, resources required and prioritisation.
Monitoring: The key monitoring actions required to check whether the objectives are being achieved, taking into consideration responsibility, frequency, methods and reporting.
1.2 Contents of the EMPr This EMPr specifies the management actions necessary to ensure minimal environmental impacts, as well as procedures for monitoring these impacts associated with the proposed activity. In terms of legal compliance, this EMPr aims to satisfy appendix 4 of Government Notice Regulation 326 of 7 April 2017, presented in Table 1-1 below.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the
Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t : DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 4
Table 1-1: Compliance with Appendix 4 of Government Notice Regulation 326 of 7 April 2017 and Section 24N of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998.
Requirements according to Appendix 4 of GNR 326 of 7 April 2017 Section
(1) An EMPr must comply with section 24N of the Act and include- a) details of -
(i) the EAP who prepared the EMPr; and (ii) the expertise of that EAP to prepare an EMPr, including a curriculum
vitae;
Section 1.3
Appendix I
b) a detailed description of the aspects of the activity that are covered by the EMPr as identified by the project description;
Section 2
c) a map at an appropriate scale which superimposes the proposed activity, its associated structures, and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the preferred site, indicating any areas that any areas that should be avoided, including buffers;
Section 2, Figure 2-1, 2-2, 2-3
d) a description of the impact management objectives, including management statements, identifying the impacts and risks that need to be avoided, managed and mitigated as identified through the environmental impact assessment process for all phases of the development including-
Section 4
(i) planning and design; Section 4
(ii) pre-construction activities; Section 4
(iii) construction activities; Section 4
(iv) rehabilitation of the environment after construction and where applicable post closure; and
Section 4
(v) where relevant, operation activities; Section 4
e) a description and identification of impact management outcomes required for the aspects contemplated in paragraph (d);
Section 4
f) a description of proposed impact management actions, identifying the manner in which the impact management objectives and outcomes contemplated in paragraphs (d) and (e) will be achieved, and must, where applicable, include actions to – i. avoid, modify, remedy, control or stop any action, activity or process which causes pollution or environmental degradation;
Section 4
ii. comply with any prescribed environmental management standards or practices;
Section 4
iii. comply with any applicable provisions of the Act regarding closure, where applicable; and
N/A
iv. comply with any provisions of the Act regarding financial provisions for rehabilitation, where applicable;
N/A
g) the method of monitoring the implementation of the impact management actions contemplated in paragraph (f);
Section 4
h) frequency of monitoring the implementation of the impact management actions contemplated in paragraph (f);
Section 4
i) an indication of the persons who will be responsible for the implementation of the impact management actions;
Section 4
j) the time periods within which the impact management actions contemplated in paragraph (f) must be implemented;
Section 4
k) the mechanism for monitoring compliance with the impact management actions contemplated in paragraph (f);
Section 4
l) a program for reporting on compliance, taking into account the requirements as Section 4
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the
Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t : DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 5
Requirements according to Appendix 4 of GNR 326 of 7 April 2017 Section
prescribed by the Regulations;
m) an environmental awareness plan describing the manner in which- (i) the applicant intends to inform his or her employees of any environmental risk which may result from their work; and (ii) risks must be dealt with in order to avoid pollution or the degradation of the environment; and
Section 4
n) any specific information that may be required by the competent authority. N/A
1.3 Environmental Assessment Practitioner The Environmental Management Services (EMS) falls under the Specialist Services (SS) group within the Implementation Unit (IU) of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The CSIR is amongst the largest multi-disciplinary research and development organizations in Africa, which undertakes applied research and development for implementation across the continent, as well as providing consulting services to industry, government and international agencies. It has been one of the leading organisations in South Africa contributing to the development and implementation of environmental assessment and management methodologies and sustainability science. The EMS vision is to assist in ensuring the sustainability of projects or plans in terms of environmental and social criteria, by providing a range of environmental services that extend across the project and planning life cycles. This group has over 20 years of experience in environmental management practices and research methodologies, as well as in conducting environmental assessment and management studies in over 15 countries in Africa, in particular in southern and West Africa, and elsewhere in the world. The EMS group links closely with wider CSIR expertise in areas such as resource mapping, biodiversity assessment, socio-economic assessments, strategic infrastructure development studies, environmental screening studies, natural resource management, etc. The group has also prepared guidelines such as the Integrated Management Series and Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment for the Western Cape provincial government. Reinett Mogotshi- Reinett holds a BSc degree in Environmental Sciences as well as BSc (Hons) in Environmental Management and Analysis from the University of Pretoria. She has two years’ experience in the environmental management field. Prior to joining EMS Group of the CSIR, she worked as an Environmental Science Intern in the Environmental management section of the city of Tshwane, where she reviewed Basic Assessment and Scoping and Environmental Reports. Reinett is currently one of the project managers of the Special Needs and Skills Development Programme of the CSIR. Reinett is a member of the IAIAsa. Minnelise Levendal – Minnelise is a Senior EAP in the EMS group of the CSIR and holds a Master’s degree in Biological Science (Botany) from the Stellenbosch University. She has 16 years of experience in Environmental Management (which includes ten years working as an EAP). Before she joined the CSIR she was employed at the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) for five years where she assessed EIAs, BAs and EMPs. Minnelise is currently managing various EIAs for wind and solar renewable energy projects in South Africa. She was the CSIR project manager for the 100 MW Ubuntu Wind Energy Facility near Jeffreys Bay (Environmental Authorisation granted in June 2012), as well as the 50 MW Banna Ba Pifhu Wind Energy Facility proposed by WKN Windcurrent near Humansdorp in the Eastern Cape (Environmental Authorisation granted in July 2014). She was the project manager of ten BAs for wind
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the
Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t : DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 6
monitoring masts in South Africa as part of the National Wind Atlas Project of the Department of Energy. Environmental Authorisation from the DEA for all the ten masts was obtained in 2010. This Environmental Management Programme that has been compiled in fulfilment of the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (2017). This EMPr describe the activities that are proposed, and prescribe the management, mitigation and monitoring measures that must be implemented to ensure that potential negative environmental or socio-economic impacts that may be associated with the development are avoided or mitigated correctly, and to ensure that positive impacts of the proposed development are promoted where possible. This document also intended to ensure that the principles of Environmental Management specified in the National Environmental Management Act are promoted during the different phases of the proposed development of a broiler.
1.4 Description of applicable legislation and policies
1.4.1 National Environmental Management Act
The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998 as amended) is the primary piece of environmental legislation in South Africa, and establishes principles for decision-making on matters affecting the environment, and establishes a framework for integrating good environmental management into all development activities. Section 2 of NEMA states the principles of environmental management that must be applied through the Republic of South Africa. The key principles that are relevant to the proposed project include:
Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably.
Development must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable. Environmental management must be integrated & take into account the effects of decisions
on all aspects of the environment & all people in the environment by pursuing the best practical environmental option.
Equitable access to environmental resources, benefits and services to meet basic human needs and ensure human well-being must be pursued.
The environment is held in public trust for the people, the beneficial use of environmental resources must serve the public interest and the environment must be protected as the people’s common heritage.
The participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance must be promoted, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding. Skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation and participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured.
The social, economic and environmental impacts of activities, including disadvantages and benefits must be considered, assessed and evaluated. Decisions must be appropriate in the light of such consideration and assessment.
The polluter must pay for the cost of remedying pollution, environmental degradation and adverse health effects.
Sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed ecosystems, such as coastal shores, estuaries, wetlands, and similar systems require specific attention in management and planning procedures, especially where they are subject to significant human resource usage and development pressure.
In terms of Section 28 of NEMA “Every person who causes, has caused, or may cause significant pollution or degradation of the environment must take reasonable measures to prevent such pollution or degradation
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the
Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t : DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 7
from occurring, continuing or recurring, or, in so far as such harm cannot reasonably be avoided or stopped, to minimise and rectify such pollution or degradation of the environment.” The principles of environmental management and the Duty of Care as stated in NEMA must be observed on site, during all phases of the proposed development of a bridge.
1.4.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations
The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations of 2017 (GN No. R324, 325 and- 327 of April 2017), published under NEMA, list those activities that may have a potentially detrimental impact on the environment, and which require environmental authorisation before those listed activities can be undertaken.
1.4.3 National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998)
In terms of the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998), there are eleven types of “water use” that require authorisation from the Department of Water & Sanitation (DWS) before the water use activities commences. Given the nature of the project, the type of water use in terms of Section 21 of the National Water Act that is relevant to the proposed project is: Section 21(i) – altering the beds, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse. Authorisation for a Water Use Licence Application is required from the DWS in order to undertake the above activity. An application for Water Use Authorisation will be lodged with the DWS.
1.4.4 National Environmental Management Waste Act (NEM:WA) GNR 921, 29 November 2013
In terms of the National Environmental Management Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008) the proposed project does not trigger a Waste Management License under the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEMWA Regulations published in GNR 921 on the 29 November 2013 Government Gazette No 37083).
1.4.5 National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999
In terms of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) an application for Heritage Resources review was submitted to SAHRA (Case ID: 97840) in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999) as amended.
1.4.6 National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004
The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) as amended (NEMBA) including all the pertinent legislation published in terms of this act was considered in compiling this EMPr. This included the determination and assessment of the fauna and flora prevailing in the proposed project and the handling thereof in terms of NEMBA.
2 THE APPROACH TO THE EMPR
A typical EMPr takes the planning and design, construction and operational phases of a project into account. The EMPr is based largely on the findings and recommendations of the BA process. However, the EMPr is considered a “live” document and must be updated with additional information or actions during the lifetime of the project if and when needed.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the
Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t : DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 8
The EMPr follows an approach of identifying an over-arching goal and objectives, accompanied by management actions that are aimed at achieving these objectives. The management actions are presented in a table format in order to show the links between the goal and associated objectives, actions, responsibilities, monitoring requirements and targets. The management plans for the Design and Layout, Construction and Operational phases consist of the following components:
Description of the activity taking place; The potential impacts associated with that activity; The appropriate mitigation measures; The responsible party; and Monitoring Frequency.
3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
For the purposes of the EMPr, the generic roles that need to be defined are those of the: Farm Manager and Team; The Contractor; and Environmental Control Officer.
Note: The specific titles for these functions will vary from project to project. The intent of this section is to give a generic outline of what these roles typically require.
3.1 Farm Manager and Team The manager of the Jam Rock farm and the team. The farm manager is responsible to oversee construction, operational and decommissioning aspects of the chicken broiler to make sure that the EMPr is implemented and the conditions of Environmental Authorisation are adhere to throughout the project lifecycle. He will also be responsible for rehabilitation of disturbed areas during construction.
3.2 The Contractor The person or company appointed to undertake construction or decommissioning of the chicken broiler. For the purposes of this EMPr, “Contractor” may also refer to the person undertaking any of the proposed activities whether awarded a contract or not. The contractor will be responsible for the overall construction and decommissioning activities on site and compliance with all conditions of authorization as well as drafting the method statement that is aimed to protect environmental resources, minimise pollution and to rehabilitate disturbed areas and its implementation thereof.
3.3 Environmental Control Officer It can either be an internal staff member of the Engineer / Contractor assigned to the project. The Environmental Control Officer will be part of the project staff and will advise the Engineer on all environmental matters relating to the works, in terms of this EMPr. The environmental officer will also be responsible for monitoring construction activities on site to also ensure that all the recommendations of the EMPr are adhere to during construction phase. He/she will also be responsible for the implementation of the EMPr on site.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the
Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t : DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 9
4 THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Jam Rock (Pty) Ltd is a producer of broiler chickens that are raised with strict considerations for chickens and the environment. It is located in Brits, North West Province. The Enterprise proposes to develop three chicken broiler houses with associated infrastructure including a road, storage unit and farm house. The size of each chicken house will be 20m x 130m, with the capacity to breed 40 000 chickens per cycle. The farm is 9.2 hectares and is situated on Portion 40 of the farm Jonathan 175-JQ. Furthermore the farm has an existing borehole with the capacity to store 10 000 L of water. The proposed infrastructure of the chicken broiler will entail the following:
3x chicken houses (130m x 20m) 6m access road Workers quarter (80mx 40m) Storage unit (60m x 40m) Home and office (40m x 40m) Used bedding area (20m x 60m)
Listed Activities The development triggers listed activities in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Regulations, Government Regulations (GNR) 324 and 327 of April 2017 promulgate under the National
Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act no 107 of 1998). In terms of these Regulations, a Basic
Assessment (BA) should be undertaken for the proposed project.
In terms of the amended NEMA EIA Regulations published in GNR 324, 325, 326 and 327 on the 7 April 2017
Government Gazette Number 40772, a BA process is required as the project triggers the following listed
activities (detailed in Table 1 below).
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the
Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t : DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 10
Relevant notice:
Activity No (s) (in terms
of the relevant notice)
Description of each listed activity as per the Government Notice
GN. R 327, 7 April 2017
5. (ii) and (iv) The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure for the concentration of (ii) more than 5 000 poultry per facility situated outside an urban area, excluding chicks younger than 20 days and (iv) more than 25000 chicks younger than 20 days per facility situated outside an urban area.
GN. R 327, 7 April 2017
27 The clearance of an area of 1 hectare or more, but less than 20 hectares of indigenous vegetation, except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for- i) the undertaking of a linear activity; or ii) maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan.
GN. R 324, 7 April 2017
12(h)(iv) The clearance of 300 square metres or more of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with the maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance plan in North West within critical biodiversity areas identified in in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 11
Figure 1: Map showing areas of conservation concerns as identified by (NSS, 2016)
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 12
Figure 2: The biodiversity map of the proposed development site
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 13
Figure 3: Aerial view of the property showing the locations of the identified finds in relation to the proposed development areas. Red symbols are heritage resources within
the proposed development site.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 14
Figure 4: Site layout of the proposed development site (as supplied by the Project Proponent)
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 15
Figure 5: Layout of the proposed development with sensitivities
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 16
5 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
As part of environmental management and enhancement, an identification and description of impact management objectives must be developed, inclusive of the proposed methods and effective management and mitigation measures required during the design, construction and operational phases of the proposed chicken broiler. The table below lists potential impacts and mitigation measures recommended for the proposed chicken broiler facility at the different phases.
Table 5-1: Impact management plan for the proposed Design and Planning Phase
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Establish measures on the access road to reduce dust, erosion and sedimentation
Implement the measures that were designed to control impacts on the road preferably during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
Loss of terrestrial vegetation and faunal habitat
Restrict all clearing of vegetation and disturbance of habitat from construction activities to the final infrastructure footprint.
Ensure that all infrastructure avoids all Very High and High sensitive areas.
During design CSIR, Farm Manager and Team
Clearly demarcate or fence in the construction site. Relocate CI plant and animal specimens from the construction footprint, with advice from an appropriate specialist
Pre-construction Farm Manager and Team
Avoid unnecessary loss of indigenous trees and termitaria.
Identify and mark indigenous trees on the ground. Those that are small and cannot be avoided should be transplanted elsewhere on site.
Design / pre-construction
Farm Manager and Team, Construction Crew, with advice from an Ecologist
Loss of CI or medicinal flora
Adhere to legal requirements and best practice guidelines regarding the displacement of CI and medicinally important floral species.
Obtain permits to remove CI species Pre-Construction Farm Manager and Team
Transplant CI and medicinally important floral specimens from the infrastructure footprint to suitable locations in the surrounding area.
Pre-Construction Botanist / horticulturist
Loss of CI fauna Adhere to law and best practice Appoint an appropriate specialist to relocate CI Pre-construction Zoologist/Ecologist
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 17
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
guidelines regarding the displacement of CI faunal species.
fauna from vegetation, termitaria and soil that is removed from the infrastructure footprint
Prohibit collection or persecution of fauna.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Pre-construction Farm Manager and Team
Introduction & proliferation of alien spp. - Competition and change in structure
Regulate / limit access by potential vectors of alien plants.
Carefully regulate / limit access by vehicles and materials to the construction site. Demarcate or fence in the construction area
Prior to and during construction
Farm Manager and Team ECO Construction manager
Prohibit the introduction of domestic animals such as dogs and cats
All Phases Farm Manager and Team
Plant only locally indigenous flora if landscaping needs to be done
All Phases Farm Manager and Team
Maintain a tidy construction site. Keep construction activities neat and tidy. When complete remove all sand piles and landscape all uneven ground while re-establishing a good topsoil layer.
During construction Farm Manager and Team
By law, remove and dispose of Category 1b alien species on site. All Category 2 species that remain on site must require a permit.
Remove Category species using mechanical methods, and minimise soil disturbance as far as possible
During construction Farm Manager and Team / construction crew
Increase in dust and erosion Implement effective measures to control dust and erosion.
Limit vehicles, people and materials to the construction site.
During construction Farm Manager and Team, Construction Crew Commence (and preferably complete)
construction during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least
Revegetate denude areas with locally indigenous flora a.s.a.p.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 18
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Implement erosion protection measures on site to reduce erosion and sedimentation of downstream areas. Measures could include bunding around soil stockpiles, and vegetation of areas not to be developed.
Implement effective and environmentally-friendly dust control measures, such as mulching or periodic wetting of the entrance road.
Sensory disturbance of fauna Time construction activities to minimise sensory disturbance of fauna.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least
During pre-construction and construction planning
Farm Manager and Team, Construction Crew
Minimise noise pollution Minimise noise to limit its impact on calling and other sensitive fauna (e.g. frogs and Secretarybird).
Prior to and throughout construction
Farm Manager and Team, Construction Crew
Minimise light pollution. Limit construction activities to day time hours. Throughout construction
Farm Manager and Team, Construction Crew
Minimise or eliminate security and construction lighting, to reduce the disturbance of nocturnal fauna.
Throughout construction
Construction Crew
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Pollution of the surrounding environment as a result of contamination of stormwater. Contamination could result from chemicals, oils, fuels, sewage, solid waste, litter etc.
Reduce the contamination of stormwater.
The appointed Contractor should compile a Method Statement for Stormwater Management during the construction phase.
All phases Construction Crew and Farm Manager and Team
Provide secure storage for oil, chemicals and other waste materials in order to prevent contamination of stormwater runoff.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 19
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Regular inspections of stormwater infrastructure should be undertaken to ensure that it is kept clear of all debris and weeds.
STORMWATER IMPACTS
Impact of the project if a detailed storm water management plan is not correctly prepared and implemented.
A detailed stormwater management plan outlining appropriate treatment measures to address runoff from disturbed portions of the site must be compiled.
Check compliance with specified conditions. Once-off during design followed by regular control
Contractor
Ensure that this is taken into consideration during the planning and design phase by reviewing signed minutes of meetings or signed reports.
Table 5-2: Impact management plan for the proposed Construction Phase
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Establish measures on the access road to reduce dust, erosion and sedimentation
Implement the measures that were designed to control impacts on the road preferably during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
During Construction Jam Rock Management, Construction Crew
Maintain the viability of the indigenous seed bank in excavated soil so that this can be used for subsequent re-vegetation of any disturbed areas. No landscaping should be performed around the facilities.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing growing plants should be least
During construction Farm Manager and Team
Briefly and effectively stockpile topsoil preferably 1-1.5m high. Natural vegetation must be allowed to recover in areas of disturbance. If recovery is slow, then a seed mix
During construction Construction Crew
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 20
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
for the area (using indigenous grass species listed within this report) should be sourced and planted
Loss of CI or medicinal flora
Adhere to legal requirements and best practice guidelines regarding the displacement of CI and medicinally important floral species.
Obtain guidance from a suitably qualified vegetation specialist or horticulturist regarding the collection, propagation/storage and transplantation of plants
During Construction Botanist / horticulturist
Loss of CI fauna Prohibit collection or persecution of fauna.
Check open trenches for trapped animals (e.g. hedgehogs, reptiles and frogs), and relocate trapped animals with advice from an appropriate specialist.
Daily, during Construction
Farm Manager and Team
Prohibit disturbance and persecution (e.g. poaching) of fauna, and introduction of pets and other alien fauna (apart from the production chickens).
All Phases Farm Manager and Team / Farm Management
Walk fence lines to remove snares.
All Phases Farm Manager and Team / Farm Management
Provide notices and training to inform workers about dangerous animals (e.g. venomous snakes and scorpions) and prohibited activities (e.g. poaching).
All Phases Farm Manager and Team / External Ecologist (Advisory Capacity)
Introduction & proliferation of alien spp. - Competition and change in structure
Regulate / limit access by potential vectors of alien plants.
Carefully regulate / limit access by vehicles and materials to the construction site. Demarcate or fence in the construction area
Prior to and during construction
Farm Manager and Team ECO Construction manager
Prohibit the introduction of domestic animals such as dogs and cats.
Pre-Construction and continued through the life of the project
Farm Manager and Team
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 21
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Plant only locally indigenous flora if landscaping needs to be done.
All Phases Farm Manager and Team
Maintain a tidy construction site. Keep construction activities neat and tidy. When complete remove all sand piles and landscape all uneven ground while re-establishing a good topsoil layer.
During construction Farm Manager and Team
By law, remove and dispose of Category 1b alien species on site. All Category 2 species that remain on site must require a permit.
Remove Category species using mechanical methods, and minimise soil disturbance as far as possible
During construction Farm Manager and Team / construction crew
Increased dust and erosion Implement effective measures to control dust and erosion.
Limit vehicles, people and materials to the construction site.
During construction Farm Manager and Team / construction crew Revegetate denude areas with locally
indigenous flora a.s.a.p.
Implement erosion protection measures on site. Measures could include bunding around soil stockpiles, and vegetation of areas not to be developed
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least.
Implement effective and environmentally-friendly dust control measures, such as mulching or periodic wetting.
Minimise sensory disturbance of fauna
Time construction activities to minimise sensory disturbance of fauna.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least
During pre-construction and construction planning
Farm Manager and Team, Construction Crew
Minimise noise pollution Minimise noise to limit its impact on sensitive fauna such as owls, korhaans and Secretarybirds.
Prior to and throughout construction
Farm Manager and Team, Construction Crew
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 22
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Minimise light pollution. Limit construction activities to day time hours. Throughout construction
Farm Manager and Team, Construction Crew
Minimise or eliminate security and construction lighting, to reduce the disturbance of nocturnal fauna.
Throughout construction
Construction Crew
HERITAGE
Destruction of graves Manage the disturbance of graves Erect fences 5 m from graves and respect 10 m buffer from fence
Prior to and throughout construction
Farm Manager and Team
Disturbance to and damage to Heritage Artefacts
Prevent damage and destruction to fossils, artefacts and materials of heritage significance.
The construction workers must be briefed on the potential uncovering of heritage features and what actions are then required. In the event that artefacts of heritage significance are discovered, all activities are to cease and the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) must be immediately contacted
Prior to and throughout construction
Farm Manager and Team
WASTE
Pollution of the surrounding environment as a result of the handling, temporary storage and disposal of solid waste (general and hazardous).
Reduce soil and groundwater contamination as a result of incorrect storage, handling and disposal of general and hazardous waste.
General waste and hazardous waste should be stored temporarily on site in suitable (and correctly labelled) waste collection bins and skips (or similar). Waste collection bins and skips should be covered with suitable material, where appropriate
Throughout construction
Farm Manager and Team, Construction Crew
Should the on-site storage of general waste and hazardous waste exceed 100 m
3 and 80 m
3
respectively, then the National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste (published on 29 November 2013 under Government
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 23
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Notice 926) must be adhered to.
Ensure that the construction site is kept clean at all times and that construction personnel are made aware of correct waste disposal methods.
Ensure that sufficient general waste disposal bins are provided for all construction personnel throughout the site. These bins must be emptied on a regular basis.
No solid waste may be burned on site.
Segregation of hazardous waste from general waste to be in place.
The Contractor should provide adequate waste skips (or similar) on site and the Construction Contract should specify that the Contractor must be responsible for the correct disposal of the contents of the waste skips.
All construction waste (including rubble) should be frequently removed from site and correctly disposed by a licensed municipal landfill site
Establish appropriate emergency procedures for accidental contamination of the surroundings. Waste recycling should be incorporated into the facility’s operations as far as possible. Designate a secured, access restricted, sign posted room for the storage of potentially hazardous substances such as herbicides, pesticides dips and medications. All hazardous waste should be disposed of at an appropriate licensed facility for this.
Records of removal of infectious waste must be kept
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 24
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
AIR QUALITY
Increase in dust and erosion Implement effective measures to control dust and erosion.
Limit vehicles, people and materials to the construction site.
During construction Farm Manager and Team, Construction Crew Commence (and preferably complete)
construction during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least
Revegetate denude areas with locally indigenous flora a.s.a.p.
Implement erosion protection measures on site to reduce erosion and sedimentation of downstream areas. Measures could include bunding around soil stockpiles, and vegetation of areas not to be developed.
Implement effective and environmentally-friendly dust control measures, such as mulching or periodic wetting of the entrance road.
Emissions from construction vehicles and generation of dust as a result of earthworks, demolition, as well as the delivery and mixing of construction materials.
Reduce dust emissions during construction activities.
Ensure that cleared (excavated) areas and unpaved surfaces are sprayed with water (obtained from an approved source) to minimise dust generation.
During pre-construction and construction planning
Construction Crew
Adequate dust control strategies should be applied to minimise dust deposition, for example: Periodic spraying of water on the entrance road when necessary
Ensure that construction vehicles travelling on unpaved roads do not exceed a speed limit of 40 km/hour.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 25
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Noise should also be minimised throughout construction to limit the impact on sensitive fauna such as owls and large terrestrial birds.
Emissions from construction vehicles and generation of dust as a result of earthworks, demolition, as well as the delivery and mixing of construction materials.
Reduce dust emissions during construction activities.
Ensure that cleared (excavated) areas and unpaved surfaces are sprayed with water (obtained from an approved source) to minimise dust generation.
During pre-construction and construction planning
Construction Crew
Adequate dust control strategies should be applied to minimise dust deposition, for example: Periodic spraying of water on the entrance road when necessary
Ensure that construction vehicles travelling on unpaved roads do not exceed a speed limit of 40 km/hour.
Commence (and preferably complete) construction during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Noise should also be minimised throughout construction to limit the impact on sensitive fauna such as owls and large terrestrial birds.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Socio-economic Impact: Employment creation and skills development opportunities during the construction phase, which is
Maximise local employment and local business opportunities to promote and improve the local economy.
Enhance the use of local labour and local skills as far as reasonably possible. Where the required skills do not occur locally, and where appropriate and applicable, ensure that relevant local individuals are trained
During the construction phase
Farm Manager and Team
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 26
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
expected to give rise to approximately 6-12 new jobs. This impact is rated as positive.
Ensure that an equitable percentage allocation is provided for local labour employment as well as specify the use of small-to-medium enterprises and training specifications in the Contractors contract.
Ensure that goods and services are sourced from the local and regional economy as far as reasonably possible.
VISUAL IMPACTS
Potential visual intrusion of construction/demolition activities on the views of sensitive visual receptors
Prevent unnecessary visual clutter from focusing attention of surrounding visual receptors on the proposed development.
No specific mitigation measures are required other than standard construction site housekeeping and dust suppression such as demarcating construction boundaries and minimise areas of surface disturbance.
All Phases Construction Crew
Night lighting of the construction site should be minimised within requirements of safety and efficiency.
SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Potential noise impact from the use of construction equipment (for the construction of the proposed infrastructure and demolition of existing infrastructure).
Prevent unnecessary impacts on the surrounding environment by ensuring that the piling noise is mitigated
Limit construction activities to day time hours During construction Construction Crew
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 27
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Noise generation from demolition and construction work (e.g. grinding and use of angle grinders), as well as from the removal of waste material (e.g. crane and truck engines). This impact is rated as neutral.
Reduce the potential noise impacts on the construction workers.
Construction personnel must wear proper hearing protection, which should be specified as part of the Construction Phase Risk Assessment carried out by the Contractor.
During construction Construction Crew
The Contractor must ensure that all construction personnel are provided with adequate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), where appropriate.
Potential health injuries to construction personnel as a result of construction work (i.e. welding fumes. This impact is rated as neutral.
Prevent respiratory illnesses caused to the construction personnel.
The Contractor must ensure that all construction personnel are provided with adequate PPE for use where appropriate.
During construction Construction Crew
Construction safety injuries: potential impact on the safety of construction workers due to construction activities (such as welding, cutting, working at heights, lifting of heavy items etc.). This impact is rated as neutral.
Prevention of injuries to and fatalities of construction personnel during the construction phase.
Ensure that a skilled and competent Contractor is appointed during the construction phase. The Contractor must be evaluated during the tender/appointment process in terms of safety standards.
During construction Construction Crew
The Contractor must ensure that all construction personnel are provided with adequate PPE for use where appropriate.
A Construction Site Manager or Safety Supervisor should be appointed, in conjunction with the project manager, to monitor all safety aspects during the construction phase. This could be the same person that is assigned to co-ordinate the construction traffic.
The Contractor must undertake a Construction Phase Risk Assessment
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 28
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Ensure that roads are not closed during construction, which may restrict access for emergency services.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Traffic, congestion and potential for collisions during the construction phase. This impact is rated as neutral.
Prevent unnecessary impacts on the surrounding road network by supplying parking for construction vehicles on site.
During the construction phase, suitable parking areas should be created and designated for construction trucks and vehicles.
During construction Construction Crew
A construction supervisor should be appointed to co-ordinate construction traffic during the construction phase (by drawing up a traffic plan prior to construction).
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Pollution caused by spillage or discharge of construction waste water into the surrounding environment.
Reduce the spillage of domestic effluent and the impact thereof on the environment.
Ensure that adequate containment structures are provided for the storage of construction materials on site.
During construction Construction Crew
Pollution of the surrounding water and ground as a result of generation of building rubble and waste scrap material.
Prevent unnecessary pollution impacts on the surrounding environment.
The amount of hazardous materials and liquids (such as cleaning materials) handled will be minimal. Fumes generated during welding will be minimal, within a well-ventilated area.
All phases Construction Crew and Farm Manager and Team
The construction site should be cleaned regularly
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 29
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
The Contractor should provide adequate waste skips (or similar) on site and the Construction Contract should specify that the Contractor must be responsible for the correct disposal of the contents of the waste skips.
All construction waste (including rubble) should be frequently removed from site and correctly disposed by a licensed municipal landfill site.
Pollution of the surrounding environment as a result of contamination of stormwater. Contamination could result from chemicals, oils, fuels, sewage, solid waste, litter etc.
Reduce the contamination of stormwater.
The appointed Contractor should compile a Method Statement for Stormwater Management during the construction phase.
All phases Construction Crew and Farm Manager and Team
Provide secure storage for oil, chemicals and other waste materials in order to prevent contamination of stormwater runoff.
Regular inspections of stormwater infrastructure should be undertaken to ensure that it is kept clear of all debris and weeds.
Ensure that the pig houses and associated drains and slurry facility are designed and lined with impermeable substances (clay-type soils, geosynthetic plastic or concrete) in accordance with advice from suitably qualified agricultural experts and international best practice norms.
STORMWATER IMPACTS
Diversion and impedance surface water flows as well as increased run-off as the result of construction activities
Prevent interference with natural run-off patterns, diverting flows and increasing the velocity of surface water flows.
Compile a Method Statement for Stormwater Management and verify if a Method Statement for Stormwater Management has been compiled by the Contractor via audits prior to the commencement of the construction phase.
During construction Contractor
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 30
Impact Management/Mitigation Measures Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Stormwater and any run-off generated by the hard surfaces should be discharged into retention swales or areas with rock rip-rap (or similar). These could be used to enhance the sense of place, if they are planted with indigenous vegetation.
Erosion and sedimentation into water bodies must be minimised through the effective stabilisation (gabions and Reno mattresses or similar) and the re-vegetation of any disturbed riverbanks.
Unnecessary run-off such as over wetting during dust control and irrigation must be avoided.
Perform periodic inspections and maintenance of soil erosion measures and stormwater control structures
Pollution of the surrounding environment as a result of contamination of stormwater. Contamination could result from chemicals, oils, fuels, sewage, solid waste, litter etc.
Reduce the contamination of stormwater.
The appointed Contractor should compile a Method Statement for Stormwater Management during the construction phase.
All phases Construction Crew and Farm Manager and Team
Provide secure storage for oil, chemicals and other waste materials in order to prevent contamination of stormwater runoff during construction phase.
Ensure that the temporary site camp and ablution facilities are established at least 32 m away from areas of high sensitivity.
Regular inspections of stormwater infrastructure should be undertaken to ensure that it is kept clear of all debris and weeds.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 31
Table 5-3: Impact management plan for the proposed Operational Phase
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
BIOSECURITY IMPACTS
Environmental contamination Ensure that excrement, carcasses, feed, and other operational waste and hazardous materials are appropriately and effectively contained and disposed of without detriment to the environment.
Adhere to best practice chicken husbandry and waste disposal norms..
Throughout Operation
Farm Manager and Team
Ensure that there are appropriate control measures in place for any contamination event
Establish appropriate emergency procedures for accidental contamination of the surroundings. Waste recycling should be incorporated into the facility’s operations as far as possible. Designate a secured, access restricted, signposted room for the storage of potentially hazardous substances such as herbicides, pesticides dips and medications. All hazardous waste should be disposed of at an appropriate licensed facility for this
Prior to operation
Rehabilitate contaminated areas a.s.a.p. in accordance with advice from appropriate contamination and environmental specialists.
A.s.a.p. following contamination
Educate workers regarding the handling of hazardous substances and about waste management and emergency procedures with regular training and notices and talks.
At least annually during operation
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 32
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Poor / Inappropriate control of animal pests
Prevent, detect and control pest infestations before they become a problem, through frequent and careful cleaning, monitoring and control.
Ensure that there is effective storm water drainage around the facility
During design, construction and operation
Farm Manager and Team
Ensure that the facility is sufficiently ventilated to keep floors, bedding, and fodder as dry as possible.
Prevent and manage unwanted animal access to fodder
Check that fan louvers (if installed) work properly, and close fans completely when off
Ensure that floors are sloped and slatted to facilitate drainage
Screed concrete floors properly to seal all cracks and limit the pooling of effluent and water
Effectively maintain and seal all pipes and reservoirs containing slurry, to prevent animals from accessing the effluent.
Clean floors regularly
Clean up excess fodder regularly from under troughs and feed bins.
Keep areas surrounding the facility free of spilled manure and litter.
Remove all trash, and sources of feed and water for pests from the outside perimeter of the facilities.
Keep weeds and gress mowed to 5cm or less immediately around the facilities, to reduce the prevalence of insects
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 33
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Electrocution devices are available to kill flies, while other mechanical devices include traps, sticky tapes or baited traps
Control rodents through effective sanitation, rodent proofing and (as humane as possible) extermination.
Rodenticides are not advised
Ensure that measures to control pests are tightly restricted to areas where these are problematic. Pest control measures should be taxon-specific. If necessary, advice should be sought from an appropriate specialist.
Transmission of diseases Ensure that pests and other potential vectors are unable to enter areas where they might encounter production animals, carcasses, excrement or bedding, by thoroughly sealing these areas using effective, humane and environmentally-friendly means.
Maintain the appropriate pest control measures Life of operation particularly at the onset of the rainy season
Farm Manager and Team
Effectively maintain and seal all pipes and reservoirs containing slurry, to prevent animals from accessing the effluent.
Throughout Operation
Farm Manager and Team
HERITAGE IMPACTS
Destruction of graves Limit disturbance of graves on site Erect fences of 5 m from graves and respect 10 m buffer from fence
Prior to construction Construction crew
Disturbance to and damage to Heritage Artefacts
Limit disturbance of any Heritage Artefacts
The construction workers must be briefed on the potential uncovering of heritage features and what actions are then required. In the event that artefacts of heritage significance are discovered, all activities are to cease and the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) must be immediately contacted.
Throughout Operation
Farm Manager and Team
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 34
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
AIR QUALITY
Atmospheric pollution due to fumes, smoke from fires (involving plant and vegetable oils or MEG).
Prevent unnecessary air pollution impacts as a result of the operational procedures.
Portable fire extinguishers and fire water hydrants (i.e. appropriate fire-fighting equipment) should be provided at the terminal as required. Mobile fire-fighting equipment should be provided at the berths as a safety precaution during the vessel offloading process. It should be noted that the products planned to be stored at the terminal have high flash points and low volatility. As a result, fires are unlikely, unsustainable, and can be extinguished with basic fire water and portable fire extinguishers.
Farm Manager and Team and ECO
Emissions from staff vehicles. Reduce emissions during operation Efficient movement of traffic through the entrance and exit in order to reduce congestion and vehicle emissions. Ensure that the facility is operated in such a manner whereby potential odours are minimised.
Farm Manager and Team
Altered burning Ensure that flammable materials are stored in an appropriate safe house. Ensure that there are appropriate control measures in place for any accidental fires. If artificial burning is considered necessary to reduce risks to human and infrastructure safety from wild fires, a fire management plan should be compiled with input from an appropriate floral specialist, and diligently
Create safe storage on the premises for flammable materials. If artificial burning is considered necessary, establish and implement a fire management plan with emergency fire procedures
Throughout Operation
Farm Manager and Team and ECO
Maintain an effective fire break between the development area and the surrounding natural environment (especially the ridge to the north, where the fire-dependent Highveld Blue butterfly may occur)
Educate workers about the plan and emergency procedures with regular training and notices
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 35
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
implemented. Annual wild fires should be strictly prohibited.
BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Maintain measures on the access road to reduce dust, erosion and sedimentation
Monitor and maintain the road impact control measures to ensure that they remain effective.
During operation Farm Manager and Team
Loss of CI or medicinal flora Harvesting of indigenous flora for medicine, fire wood, building materials, and other purposes must be prohibited
Education of the Farm Management and team required prior to operation and with yearly refresher talks.
Prior to and during operation
Farm Manager and Team
Introduction & proliferation of alien spp.
Regulate / limit access by potential vectors of alien plants.
Carefully regulate / limit access by vehicles and materials to the site
Throughout Operation
Farm Manager and Team and ECO
Prohibit the introduction of domestic animals such as dogs and cats.
Plant only locally indigenous flora if landscaping needs to be done
Maintain a neat and tidy production facility
Employ best practices regarding the tilling of soil and weed management
Minimise the accumulation or dispersal of excess fodder on site
By law, remove and dispose of Category 1b alien species on site. All Category 2 species that remain on site must require a permit.
Remove Category species using mechanical methods, and minimise soil disturbance as far as possible. Alien debris could be donated to a local community.
Sensory disturbances Limit the effects of light pollution on nocturnal fauna (including numerous insects, bats and hedgehogs).
Minimise essential lighting.
Ensure that all outdoor lights are angled downwards and/or fitted with hoods.
Avoid using metal halide, mercury or other bulbs that emit high UV (blue-white) light that is highly and usually fatally attractive
During design, construction and operation
Farm Manager and Team
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 36
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
to insects.
Use bulbs that emit warm, long wavelength (yellow-red) light, or use UV filters or glass housings on lamps to filter out UV.
Limit the effects of noise from operational activities on fauna such as carnivores, frogs and Secretarybirds.
Minimise unavoidable noise
Conduct regular maintenance of machinery and ventilation systems / fans (if any).
Prior to and during operation
Farm Manager and Team
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Improved service delivery with regards to produce and poultry products.
Maximise service delivery through maintenance of infrastructure
Ensure that the proposed infrastructure is maintained appropriately to ensure that all facilities and infrastructure operate within its design capacity to deliver as the market requires.
During Operation Farm Manager and Team
VISUAL IMPACTS
Potential impact of night lighting of the development on the nightscape of the surrounding landscape.
Prevent night lights from impacting on surrounding visual receptors by minimizing glare and light spill.
No specific mitigation measures are recommended as it is assumed that night lighting of the proposed storage facility will be planned in such a manner so as to minimise light pollution such as glare and light spill (light trespass) by: Using light fixtures that shield the light and focus illumination on the ground (or only where light is required).
All phases Farm Manager and Team
Avoiding elevated lights within safety/security requirements.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 37
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Using minimum lamp wattage within safety/security requirements.
Where possible, using timer switches or motion detectors to control lighting in areas that are not occupied continuously (if permissible and in line with minimum security requirements). Switching off lights when not in use in line with safety and security.
HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT
Altered burning Ensure that flammable materials are stored in an appropriate safe house. Ensure that there are appropriate control measures in place for any accidental fires. If artificial burning is considered necessary to reduce risks to human and infrastructure safety from wild fires, a fire management plan should be compiled with input from an appropriate floral specialist, and diligently implemented. Annual wild fires should be prohibited.
Create safe storage on the premises for flammable materials. If artificial burning is considered necessary, establish and implement a fire management plan with emergency fire procedures
Prior to, and through operation
Farm Manager and Team
Create safe storage on the premises for flammable materials. If artificial burning is considered necessary, establish and implement a fire management plan with emergency fire procedures
Prior to, and at least annually during operation
Educate workers about the fire plan and emergency procedures with regular training and notices
At least annually during operation
Potential noise impact from operations and road transport of products during the operational phase (i.e. increased road traffic).
Prevent unnecessary impacts on the surrounding environment by ensuring that the drivers of road tankers minimise the use of air
It is recommended that the drivers of the vehicles be discouraged from using air brakes at night.
Farm Manager and Team
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 38
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
brakes. Limit the effects of noise associated disturbances from pigs and operational activities on sensitive fauna such as owls and medium-large mammals (especially carnivores), potentially occurring hedgehogs and large terrestrial birds such as Korhaans and Secretarybirds.
Groundwater contamination as a result of the storage of pig waste in the proposed cement lagoon.
Reduce soil and groundwater contamination as a result of incorrect storage and disposal of waste.
Ensure that that the pig houses and associated drains and slurry facility are designed and lined with impermeable substances (clay-type soils, geosynthetic plastic, or concrete) in accordance with advice from suitably qualified agricultural experts and international best practice norms.
ECO
Personnel should ensure careful transportation of waste from the pig facilities to the lagoon as to avoid spillage.
Adequate infrastructure should ensure waste will not exit the lagoon in an extreme weather event.
Ensure adequate treatment of the waste to avoid extreme odours and contaminations.
Potential impact on the health of operating personnel resulting in potential health injuries.
To ensure that there are no adverse effects on the health of operating personnel.
Operational personnel must wear basic PPE (e.g. gloves, goggles etc.) as necessary during the operational phase.
Farm Manager and Team
Minor accidents to the public and moderate accidents to operational staff (e.g. fires).
Ensure operating personnel or the public are not affected or injured by heat from possible fires.
An Emergency Plan should be compiled in order to deal with potential spillages and fires. Records of practices should be kept on site.
Annually Farm Manager and Team
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 39
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Scheduled inspections should be implemented by operating personnel in order to assure and verify the integrity of hoses, piping and storage lagoon.
Portable fire extinguishers and fire water hydrants (i.e. appropriate fire-fighting equipment) should be provided at the facility as required.
Impact of extra operational vehicles on the road network.
Prevent unnecessary or excessive heavy vehicles
Undertake re-calibration of existing traffic signals if required.
Farm Manager and Team
STORMWATER IMPACTS
Discharge of contaminated stormwater into the surrounding environment. Contamination could result from chemicals, oils, fuels, sewage, solid waste, litter etc.
Reduce the contamination of stormwater during operation.
The appointed Contractor should compile a Method Statement for Stormwater Management during the operation.
Once off and updated as required.
Contractor
Undertake regular inspections of the stormwater infrastructure (i.e. by implementing walk through inspections).
Throughout Operation
Farm manager and team
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 40
Table 5-4: Impact management plan for the proposed Decommissioning Phase
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Loss or degradation of the wetland on the access road
Maintain measures on the access road to reduce dust, erosion and sedimentation
Monitor and maintain the road impact control measures to ensure that they remain effective.
During operation Farm Manager and Team
Introduction & proliferation of alien spp. - Competition and change in structure
By law, remove and dispose of Category 1b alien species on site. All Category 2 species that remain on site must require a permit.
Remove Category species using mechanical methods and minimise soil disturbance as far as possible.
Throughout the decommissioning phase.
Farm Manager and Team and ECO
Sensory disturbances Time demolition / rehabilitation activities to minimise sensory disturbance of fauna.
Commence (and preferably complete) demolition / rehabilitation during winter, when the risk of disturbing active (including breeding and migratory) animals, should be least.
Throughout the decommissioning phase.
Farm Manager and Team and ECO
Limit disturbance from noise Minimise noise to limit its impact on sensitive fauna such as owls, korhaans and Secretarybirds
Limit disturbance from light Limit demolition activities to day time hours
Minimise or eliminate security and other lighting, to reduce the disturbance of nocturnal fauna
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Increase in dust and erosion Implement effective measures to control dust and erosion.
Limit vehicles, people and materials to the construction site.
During construction Farm Manager and Team, Construction Crew Commence (and preferably complete)
construction during winter, when the risk of erosion should be least
Revegetate denude areas with locally indigenous flora a.s.a.p.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 41
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Implement erosion protection measures on site to reduce erosion and sedimentation of downstream areas. Measures could include bunding around soil stockpiles, and vegetation of areas not to be developed.
Implement effective and environmentally-friendly dust control measures, such as mulching or periodic wetting of the entrance road.
HERITAGE IMPACTS
Destruction of graves Limit disturbance of graves on site
Erect fence of 5 m from graves and respect 10 m buffer from fence
Carry out monitoring for the decommissioning phase.
Contractor
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Potential spillage of effluent to the surrounding environment (from portable sanitation facilities for decommissioning personnel).
Reduce the spillage of domestic effluent and the impact thereof on the environment.
Normal sewage management practises should be implemented. These include ensuring that portable sanitation facilities are regularly emptied and the resulting sewage is transported safely (by an appointed service provider) for correct disposal at an appropriate, licenced facility. Proof of disposal (in the form of waste disposal slips or waybills) should be retained on file for auditing purposes.
Monthly ECO
Discharge of contaminated stormwater into the surrounding environment. Contamination could result from chemicals, oils, fuels, sewage, solid waste, litter etc.
Reduce the contamination of stormwater.
The appointed Contractor should compile a Method Statement for Stormwater Management during the decommissioning phase.
Once off (and thereafter updated as required).
Contractor
Provide secure storage for oil, chemicals and other waste materials to prevent contamination of stormwater runoff.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 42
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Pollution of the surrounding environment as a result of the handling, temporary storage and disposal of solid waste.
Reduce soil and groundwater contamination as a result of incorrect storage, handling and disposal of general and hazardous waste.
General waste (i.e. building rubble, demolition waste, discarded concrete, bricks, tiles, wood, glass, plastic, metal, excavated material, packaging material, paper and domestic waste etc.) and hazardous waste (i.e. empty tins, paint and paint cleaning liquids, oils, fuel spillages and chemicals etc.) generated during the decommissioning phase should be stored temporarily on site in suitable (and correctly labelled) waste collection bins and skips (or similar). Waste collection bins and skips should be covered with suitable material, where appropriate.
Carry out monitoring for the decommissioning phase.
ECO
Should the on-site storage of general waste and hazardous waste exceed 100 m
3 and 80 m
3
respectively, then the National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste (published on 29 November 2013 under GN 926) must be adhered to.
Ensure that general waste and hazardous waste generated are removed from the site on a regular basis and disposed of at an appropriate, licensed waste disposal facility by an approved waste management Contractor. Waste disposal slips or waybills should be kept on file for auditing purposes as proof of disposal.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 43
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
Ensure that sufficient general waste disposal bins are provided for all personnel throughout the site. These bins must be emptied on a regular basis.
Appropriately time demolition / rehabilitation activities to minimise sensory disturbance to fauna.
NOISE IMPACTS
Emissions from decommissioning vehicles and generation of dust as a result of earthworks and demolition.
Reduce dust emissions during decommissioning activities.
Ensure that cleared (excavated) areas and unpaved surfaces are sprayed with water (obtained from an approved source) to minimise dust generation.
Carry out monitoring for the decommissioning phase.
Contractor and ECO
Approved soil stabilisers may be utilised to limit dust generation.
Ensure that decommissioning vehicles travelling on unpaved roads do not exceed a speed limit of 40 km/hour.
VISUAL IMPACTS
Potential visual intrusion of decommissioning activities on the existing views of sensitive visual receptors.
Prevent unnecessary visual clutter from focusing attention of surrounding visual receptors on the proposed development.
No specific mitigation measures are required other than standard site housekeeping and dust suppression. These are included below: The contractor(s) should maintain good housekeeping on site to avoid litter and minimise waste.
Weekly
Construction Crew and ECO
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 44
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
The project developer should demarcate decommissioning boundaries and minimise areas of surface disturbance.
Appropriate plans should be in place to minimise fire hazards and dust generation.
Litter and rubble should be timeously removed from the work site and disposed at a licenced waste disposal facility.
Night lighting of the decommissioning site should be minimised within requirements of safety and efficiency.
Limit the effects of light pollution on nocturnal fauna (e.g. The potentially occurring Hedgehog and Rusty Pipistrelle but also various invertebrate species)
Limit the effects of light pollution on nocturnal fauna (e.g. The potentially occurring Hedgehog and Rusty Pipistrelle but also various invertebrate species)
SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Noise generation from demolition activities (e.g. grinding, steel falling, use of angle grinders) during the decommissioning phase. This impact is rated as neutral.
Reduce the potential noise impacts on the decommissioning personnel
A method statement, including detailed procedures, must be drawn up prior to any decommissioning of existing tanks.
Throughout the decommissioning phase.
ECO and Contractor
Decommissioning personnel must wear proper hearing protection, which should be specified as part of the Decommissioning Phase Risk Assessment carried out by the Contractor.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the Fa rm Jona than 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t :
DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 45
Impact Description Management/Mitigation Measures
Methodology Monitoring Frequency
Responsibility
The Contractor must ensure that all decommissioning personnel are provided with adequate PPE, where appropriate.
Potential health injuries to demolition staff during the decommissioning phase. This impact is rated as neutral.
Prevent respiratory illnesses caused to the decommissioning personnel
The Contractor must ensure that all decommissioning personnel are provided with adequate PPE for use where appropriate.
Throughout the decommissioning phase.
ECO and Contractor
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Heavy traffic, congestion and potential for collisions. This impact is rated as neutral.
Prevention of injuries, fatalities, and damage to equipment and vehicles during the decommissioning phase.
Suitable parking areas should be created and designated for trucks and vehicles.
Throughout the decommissioning phase.
Contractor and ECO
A supervisor should be appointed to co-ordinate traffic during the decommissioning phase.
Road barricading should be undertaken where required and road safety signs should be adequately installed at strategic points within the site.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M M E Bas ic Assessment for the proposed deve lopment o f a ch icken bro i le r fac i l i t y on Por t ion 40 o f the
Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Br i t s , Nor th W es t : DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix J, Page 46
6 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION/ ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS PLAN
The farm manager will be responsible for implementing a programme that will raise environmental awareness for all construction workers. The environmental awareness training will be presented to all workers in other to promote a successful implementation of the EMPr. An Environmental Control Officer shall be appointed to assist the manager with effective implementation of the programme and to also ensure compliance with all conditions of authorisations received. The Awareness training shall emphasise the importance of an EMPr in order to promote compliance. All the environmental impacts that are associated with the proposed development should be outlined together with the proposed mitigation measures. The programme should also focus on sensitive areas in order to ensure that sensitive natural resources are protected. The environmental awareness training should be undertaken when necessary and it is the responsibility of the farm manager to ensure that every person who will be coming to site is educated about the general conduct. Furthermore a register must be signed as part of the monitoring process; this will serve as proof that workers were made aware of the sensitivities on site. A method statement will be compiled by the contractor prior to commencement of construction activities. The method statement will comply with all the recommendations that have been outlined in the EMPr of the project with aims to protect environmental resources, minimise pollution and to rehabilitate disturbed areas.
7 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & REPORTING/ AUDITING
The Environmental Control Officer will be responsible for monitoring of construction activities on site to also ensure that all the recommendations of the EMPr are adhere to during the construction phase of the programme. Monitoring of compliance with all the recommendations should be done regularly in order to protect the natural resources on site. The construction area must be inspected and the Environmental Control Officer must compile a report after each inspection. Should non-compliance be recorded, the construction activities must be ceased until remedial actions are taken to ensure compliance. The report must be submitted to the Farm manager who can then address any issues raised with the engineer and contractor. The reports will be kept as part of record keeping and will be send to READ should they be requested. Written records should entail the method statement, the approved EMPr that consists of monitoring reports, a site incident register, relevant authorisations that have been obtained and records of any meeting and training held with the construction workers. The farm manager will also be responsible for post construction phase monitoring programme i.e. clearance of Invasive Alien Species on site, the removal of debris during flooding etc.
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix K, Page 1
Details of EAP and expertise ___________________________________________________________________ 2
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix K, Page 2
DETAILS OF EAP AND EXPERTISE
Minnelise Levendal (Project Leader)
CSIR Jan Cilliers Street PO Box 320 Stellenbosch 7600 South Africa
Phone: +27 21 888 2400 Fax: +27 21 888 2693 Email: [email protected]
CURRICULUM VITAE OF MINNELISE LEVENDAL – PROJECT LEADER Name of firm CSIR
Name of staff Minnelise Levendal
Profession Environmental Assessment and Management
Position in firm Project Manager
Years’ experience 8 years
Nationality South African
Languages Afrikaans and English
CONTACT DETAILS: Postal Address: P O Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599 Telephone Number: 021-888 2495/2661 Cell: 0833098159 Fax: 0865051341 e-mail: [email protected]
BIOSKETCH: Minnelise joined the CSIR Environmental Management Services group (EMS) in 2008. She is focussing primarily on managing Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), Basic Assessments (BAs) and Environmental Screening studies for renewable energy projects including wind and solar projects. These include an EIA for a wind energy facility near Swellendam, Western Cape South Africa for BioTherm (Authorisation granted in September 2011) and a similar EIA for BioTherm in Laingsburg, Western Cape (in progress). She is also managing two wind farm EIAs and a solar Photovoltaic BA for WKN-Windcurrent SA in the Eastern Cape. Minnelise was the project manager for the Basic Assessment for the erection of ten wind monitoring masts at different sites in South Africa as part of the national wind atlas project of the Department of Energy in 2009 and 2010..She was also a member of the Project Implementation Team who managed the drafting of South Africa’s Second National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The national Department of Environmental Affairs appointed the South African Botanical Institute (SANBI) to undertake this project. SANBI subsequently appointed the CSIR to manage this project.
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix K, Page 3
EDUCATION:
M.Sc. (Botany) Stellenbosch University 1998 B.Sc. (Hons.) (Botany) University of the Western Cape 1994 B.Sc. (Education) University of the Western Cape 1993
MEMBERSHIPS:
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Western Cape (member of their steering committee from 2001-2003)
IUCN Commission on Education and Communication (CEC); World Conservation Learning Network (WCLN) American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Society of Conservation Biology (SCB)
EMPLOYMENT RECORD:
1995: Peninsula Technicon. Lecturer in the Horticulture Department. 1996: University of the Western Cape. Lecturer in the Botany Department. 1999: University of Stellenbosch. Research assistant in the Botany Department (3 months) 1999: Bengurion University (Israel). Research assistant (Working in the Arava valley, Negev – Israel; 2 months).
Research undertaken was published (see first publication in publication list) 1999-2004: Assistant Director at the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
(DEA&DP). Work involved assessing Environmental Impact Assessments and Environmental Management Plans; promoting environmental management and sustainable development.
2004 to present: Employed by the CSIR in Stellenbosch: September 2004 – May 2008: Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services Group (NRE) May 2008 to present: Environmental Management Services Group (EMS)
PROJECT EXPERIENCE RECORD: The following table presents a list of projects undertaken at the CSIR as well as the role played in each project:
Completion Date Project description Role Client
2011 (in progress)
EIA for the proposed Electrawinds Swartberg wind energy project near Moorreesburg in the Western Cape
Project Manager
Electrawinds
2010-2011 (in progress)
EIA for the proposed Ubuntu wind energy project, Eastern Cape
Project Manager
WKN Windkraft SA
2010-2011 (in progress)
EIA for the proposed Banna ba pifhu wind energy project, Eastern Cape
Project Manager
WKN Windkraft SA
2010-2011
BA for a powerline near Swellendam in the Western Cape
Project Manager
BioTherm Energy (Pty Ltd
2010-2011 (Environmental Authorisation granted in September 2011)
EIA for a proposed wind farm near Swellendam in the Western Cape
Project Manager
BioTherm Energy (Pty Ltd
2010 (complete)
Basic Assessment for the erection of two wind monitoring masts near Swellendam and Bredasdorp in the Western Cape
Project Manager
BioTherm Energy (Pty Ltd
2010 (complete)
Basic Assessment for the erection of two wind monitoring masts near Jeffrey’s Bay in the Eastern Cape
Project Manager
Windcurrent (Pty Ltd
2009-2010 ((Environmental Authorisations granted during 2010)
Basic Assessment Process for the proposed erection of 10 wind monitoring masts in SA as part of the national wind atlas project
Project Manager
Department of Energy through SANERI; GEF
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix K, Page 4
Completion Date Project description Role Client
2010
South Africa’s Second National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Project Manager
SANBI
2009 (Environmental Authorisation granted in 2009)
Basic Assessment Report for a proposed boundary wall at the Port of Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape
Project Manager
Transnet Ltd
2008
Developing an Invasive Alien Plant Strategy for the Wild Coast, Eastern Cape
Co-author Eastern Cape Parks Board
2006-2008 Monitoring and Evaluation of aspects of Biodiversity
Project Leader Internal project awarded through the Young Researchers Fund
2006 Integrated veldfire management in South Africa. An assessment of current conditions and future approaches.
Co- author Working on Fire
2004-2005 Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Wild Coast, Eastern Cape, SA
Co-author Wilderness Foundation
2005 Western Cape State of the Environment Report: Biodiversity section. (Year One).
Co- author and Project
Manager
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
PUBLICATIONS: Bowie, M. (néé Levendal) and Ward, D. (2004). Water status of the mistletoe Plicosepalus acaciae parasitic on isolated Negev Desert populations of Acacia raddiana differing in level of mortality. Journal of Arid Environments 56: 487-508. Wand, S.J.E., Esler, K.J. and Bowie, M.R (2001). Seasonal photosynthetic temperature responses and changes in 13C under varying temperature regimes in leaf-succulent and drought-deciduous shrubs from the Succulent Karoo, South Africa. South African Journal of Botany 67:235-243. Bowie, M.R., Wand, S.J.E. and Esler, K.J. (2000). Seasonal gas exchange responses under three different temperature treatments in a leaf-succulent and a drought-deciduous shrub from the Succulent Karoo. South African Journal of Botany 66:118-123.
LANGUAGES
Language Speaking Reading Writing English Excellent Excellent Excellent
Afrikaans Excellent Excellent Excellent Minnelise Levendal
May 2017
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix K, Page 5
Reinett Mogotshi (Project Manager)
CURRICULUM VITAE: REINETT MOGOTSHI PO Box 320 Stellenbosch 7599 South Africa
Office : +27 21 888 2432 Cell : +27 72 926 8494 Fax : +27 21 888 2473 Email [email protected]
Position in Firm: Junior Environmental Assessment Practitioner (306695) Full Name: Mogotshi, Mashedi Reinett Specialisation: GIS and Environmental Science Date of Birth: 09 February 1993 Nationality: South African
BIOSKETCH Reinett holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Sciences and Honours in Environmental Analysis and Management from University of Pretoria. She is currently studying towards her Master of Philosophy in Environmental Management at the University of Stellenbosch. Reinett was appointed as a teaching assistant for Academic Information Management and Assistant lecturer, where she taught first year students Ms Office (Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Access and Project), internet and database searching from 2013-2014. She then worked for Environmental Management Services department of City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality as an Environmental Science Intern in November 2014, where she got exposure in three sub-sections within the department, namely Landscape and Urban Design, Environmental Planning and Open Space Management. Experience acquired included reviewing of BA and S&EI reports, creating thematic maps using ArcGIS, mapping of City of Tshwane Parks; reviewing Landuse applications such as applications for township establishment, rezoning, consolidation, division, subdivision and consent use as well working with project managers and Landscape Architects to do technical quality control for parks development within the City. Reinett joined the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) as an Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) Intern within the Environmental Management Services (EMS) group in 2015. She is currently a Junior Environmental Practitioner for the same group. Her duties include Assistance to other EAPs within EMS in their projects; Report writing and project management; Participating in various forms of environmental assessments (BAs, EIAs); consultation with stakeholders and public meetings; GIS mapping for Special Needs projects and other EIAs within the group and Project administration (e.g. contracting and invoicing). She is involved with the Special Needs and Skills Development (SNSD) Programme, which assists Community Trusts, Small, Micro to Medium Enterprises, with environmental services to comply with NEMA EIA Regulations.
EXPERIENCE Completion
Date Project description Role Client
2016 (In Progress)
Basic Assessment for Scouts South Africa for the proposed expansion of a bridge over the Spruit River on the remainder of the farm Olyvenbosch 326, Wellington, Western Cape.
Project Manager and Mapping
Scouts South Africa
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix K, Page 6
Completion Date Project description Role Client
2016 (In Progress)
Basic Assessment and Waste Management Licence for Alphomega Farming Co-operative for the proposed development of a pig production enterprise on Portion 18 of Portion 13 of the Farm Poortje 340-IQ, Vereeniging, Gauteng
Project Manager and Mapping
Alphomega Farming
2017 (In Progress)
Basic Assessment for the proposed development of a chicken broiler facility on Portion 40 of the Farm Jonathan 175- JQ, Brits, North West.
Project Manager and Mapping
JamRock (Pty) Ltd
2016 (In Progress)
Basic Assessment for Khanyani Agricultural Co-operative’s proposed maize and bean cultivation and harvesting enterprise on two portions of the Emthembeni Farm, near Estcourt in KwaZulu-Natal.
Project Reviewer Khanyani Agricultural Co-operative’s
2015 (in progress)
Special Needs and Skills Development Programme: Programme management and conducting of Basic Assessments for disadvantaged communities/businesses/enterprises
GIS Technician National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), South Africa
February 2015
Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the proposed Class 3 road between the K34 and the Hazeldean Node in the Pretoria East- To be known as Hazeldean Boulevard submitted to City of Tshwane metropolitan Municipality
Departmental Reviewer Confidential
April 2015 Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the proposed Class 3 road between the K34 and the Hazeldean Node in the Pretoria East- To be known as Hazeldean Boulevard submitted to City of Tshwane metropolitan Municipality
Departmental Reviewer City of Tshwane
Confidential
April 2015 Draft basic Assessment Report for the proposed residential township development as part of Portion 5 of the Farm Tygervalley 334-JR- To be known as Tijger Valley Extension 14 and 34
Departmental Reviewer City of Tshwane
Confidential
January 2015 Final Basic Assessment Report for the proposed township establishment on part of the Remainder of Portion 9 and a part of Portion 145 of the Farm Brakfontein 399-JR- To be known as Rooihuiskraal North extension 29
Departmental Reviewer City of Tshwane
Confidential
2015 GIS screening for sites recommended for parks development in the 2015/2016 financial year.
Project assistant Confidential
2015 APPLICATION FOR TOWNSHIP ESTABLISHMENT: • Bronberg Close Extension 9 • Bronberg Close Extension 10 • Bronberg Extension 28 • Die Hoewes Extension 305 • Derdepoort Extension 14 • Lotus Gardens Extension 22 • Lotus Gardens Extension 18-28 • Proposed Monavoni Extensions 74 And 75 • Monavoni Extension 65 • Monavoni Extension 70 • Andeon Extension 28 • Heatherview Extension 42 • Rosslyn Extension 61 • Equestria X206 • Zwartkoppies X41 • Zwartkoppies X42
Environmental and GIS Screening and Departmental Reviewer City of Tshwane
Confidential
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix K, Page 7
EMPLOYMENT RECORD • 2017 CSIR Environmental Management Services (EMS) Junior Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) • 2015 CSIR Environmental Management Services (EMS) Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) Intern • 2015 City Of Tshwane Junior Environmental Science Intern • 2013-2014 UP School of Information Management Assistant Lecturer & Teaching Assistant
QUALIFICATIONS • 2014 University of Pretoria BSc Honours (Environmental Analysis and Management) • 2013 University of Pretoria BSc (Environmental Sciences)
SHORT-COURSES, CONFERENCES AND WORKSHOPS
• 2016 Technical Workshop on the Roles and Responsibilities of Environmental Control Officers, Brackenfell, November 2016.
• 2016 International Association for Impact Assessors South Africa (IAIAsa) National Annual Conference, August 2016, Port Elizabeth.
• 2015 Practical Adaptation for vulnerable communities by Adaptation Network, Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens, Cape Town, August 2015.
• 2016 Environmental Law on October 2015 at Newlands, Cape Town. • 2015 CiLLA Project Management I Course on November 2015 at CSIR Pretoria
LANGUAGES Speaking Reading Writing Setswana Excellent Excellent Excellent Sepedi Excellent Excellent Excellent English Excellent Excellent Excellent
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS • IAIA: Member of International Association of Impact Assessment South Africa (IAIAsa) since 12 January 2016.
Reinett Mogotshi
May 2017
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix L, Page 1
N/A
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix M, Page 1
N/A.
A P P E N D I C E S DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A CHICKEN BROILER FACILITY ON PORTION 40 OF THE FARM JONATHAN 175- JQ, BRITS, NORTH WEST
Appendix N, Page 1
N/A.